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
ByteMe
May 28th, 2009
8:02 am
Your “everybody does it” argument in paragraph 3 would be better served by at least one example to back up the assertion.
Outcome of the nomination: she gets confirmed, conservatives continue to work on gnawing off their own leg.
jt
May 28th, 2009
8:02 am
“there can never be a universal definition of wise.”
I call B.S. on that.
Maybe a lawyer would believe would fall for that. Or a member of the R & D party.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 28th, 2009
8:03 am
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.
It sure does-
In writing his decision (Maryland democrat Supreme Court Justice) Taney used what Sotomayor calls the “richness” of his “cultural experience” as a white slave owner to describe Dred Scott and his fellow African-Americans as ” beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations.” Indeed, Taney went on to say that blacks were “so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
So unremarkable did Taney believe his beliefs to be that he ascribed his racial views as “fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race…regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”-AmSpec
And not in any good way.
md
May 28th, 2009
8:11 am
I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina female who hasn’t lived that life.
Reverse the wording and tell me how long it would take for the media to pounce on the white man that would have said this. Had any of the sitting Supremes made a statement like this, it is highly doubltful they would now be “sitting”.
I’m guessing the New Haven firefighters don’t agree with your “interpretation” as they have clearly been denied promotions based on race.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
8:15 am
“Yes, I will bring the understanding of a woman to the Court, but I doubt that alone will affect my decisions. I think the important thing about my appointment is not that I will decide cases as a woman, but that I am a woman who will get to decide cases.” Sandra Day O’Connor
My own feeling? I have come to accept that based on their physical and mental attributes men are generally better athletes and that women based on their own physical and mental attributes are generally better
jurists. I hope the next 2 or 3 SCOTUS appointees are female.
Brava Sonia.
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 28th, 2009
8:15 am
He should not have accepted the Senate appointment from soon-to-be-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich, we wrote, and the way in which he fudged the facts of his negotiations with the Blagojevich camp — failing to come clean about whole conversations and any mention of money — stripped him of credibility.-Chicago Tribune
Since democrats are obviously too corrupted to choose a competent Senator for Illinois, isn’t it time to let We The People pick our representatives?
You’re not skeered, are you?
RB from Gwinnett
May 28th, 2009
8:18 am
You 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.
But she must be confirmed because the chosen one nominated her and in your eyes, he can do no wrong.
Sheep.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
8:20 am
Oh, so this is where all the nervous, insecure, castration-anxiety plagued little boys are playing now?
Have fun with your talking point. Gotta run. Just one thing:
And that doesn’t even take into account her pathetic record.
I look forward to hearing more from these intellectual giants about her judicial record, since they’ve obviously been through her cases by now and have developed an informed opinion. Carry on!
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
8:20 am
Actually, Jay, biography should have nothing to do with it. Here is the Oath of Office for a Supreme Court Justice:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
No where does it say the words “based on my experiences, gender or ethnicity”.
Now, to you defense (or copy of someone else’s defense of her opinion regarding the New Haven case. Saying that she was just following existing law and precedence is a poor excuse. Plessy v. Ferguson was bad SC ruling, but using your defense of Sotomayor, a judge could just have easily used that as precedence. Not saying it is right, but just pointing out that there is bad law out there, and he judicial standard in choosing bad law as an example (let’s punish all the achievers because we don’t have a minority in the mix) does not meet the definition of her position – to provide JUSTICE.
Supreme Court justices have but one source for deciding whether a law is interpreted properly – the United States Constitution. That’s it. No biography, no experiences, no race, no gender, no ethnicity.
Oh, and your Founding Fathers reference was a joke. They didn’t want power in the hands of one person, Jay (that whole “we just overthrew a sovereign” thing). Had nothing to do with experiences. Nice try.
I rule Andy
May 28th, 2009
8:22 am
I guess the wingbutternuts think Harriet Meiers is the better choice.
Redneck Convert
May 28th, 2009
8:23 am
Well, a judge on the SC should uphold Conservative laws and turn down librul laws. That’s what this is all about–not if this woman is a racist.
The Founding Fathers set things up so Congress can’t do just anything it wants to do. So we have a kind of 2nd Congress, the Supreme Court. If there’s more libruls on the SC than Conservatives, then librul laws get upheld and Conservative laws get overturned. If there’s more Conservatives than libruls, then Conservative laws get upheld and librul laws get turned down.
I wish people would just be honest and not bring up stuff that don’t have anything to do with this woman’s appointment. We were making alot of progress on the SC before this snake oil salesman got elected President. It was just a couple days ago that the SC overturned this law that kept criminals from talking to the police without a lawyer present. Now things are wide open for turning the SC into a librul court. We need to put special guards on Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia to keep them from getting hurt. It ought to be against the law for them to fly or go on hunting trips. The rest of them can just do what they want. Maybe a hunting trip with Cheney.
Anyhow, I’m sick and tired of hearing all this fussing about this new pick. We all know what’s going on here and we need to admit it. We need to call a spade a spade and stop this stuff about why a new person is qualified or not. This new person ought not to be on the court. She’s a librul.
That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.
md
May 28th, 2009
8:27 am
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?
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
8:32 am
You know, I rule Andy, your comment would mean so much more if it wasn’t the conservatives that pressured Bush to withdraw Meiers nomination because they felt she wasn’t Constitutionally anchored enough.
Get a clue.
RB from Gwinnett
May 28th, 2009
8:33 am
No, I think Hariett Meyers was a terrible choice. Do you have the same ability to judge things as they are vs. singing the party song all day?
I also think Bush and the R congress spent like drunken democrats for 6 years and poorly handled the war by being too nice.
Can you show the same honesty about Obama?
I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 28th, 2009
8:34 am
As President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a “racist,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
eewwwww
Lord Help Us
May 28th, 2009
8:36 am
MD, Alito was overturned 100% of the time. Ready to have him impeached?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
8:37 am
md
please review the percentage of reversals on Roberts and Alito.
it should improve your opinion of Judge Sotomayor.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
8:41 am
Now that the pre-appointment “madlib” talking points have been soundly debunked…..the talking heads are hitting her about the food she eats and how she pronounces her name. Too sad to be funny.
I said it before, the GOP has got to back off this….for their own good.
George American
May 28th, 2009
8:41 am
I go back to what I’ve said before. There are three levels to absolute rule of the earth:
1) The Bible
2) The Constitution (”Have you read it”)
3) The Bill of Rights
This lady, since she is a liberal activist judge, will probably throw all of these rules in garbage and make it up as she goes along. Who does she think she is to rewrite God’s book or the words of our fore-Fathers.
This appointment with the direction of the Obamatang will certainly be the end of this great nation.
ByteMe
May 28th, 2009
8:44 am
md: the Supremes only take up a case if there are enough justices who vote (in private) to hear the case and they do that only because enough justices think there might be reason to overturn, not because they are bored and have nothing better to do. The rest of the cases are considered “confirmed” and the Supremes do not take up the case. The stat I’ve heard for the Supremes overturning at least part of an appellate ruling is about 70-80%. 50-60% is considered excellent.
Go find a new talking point.
ByteMe
May 28th, 2009
8:46 am
That’s “overturning at least part of an appelate ruling for the cases they choose to review“
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
8:47 am
“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?”
Like those taking her quote about Latina women out of context and trying to use it as proof of something it’s not…you, TOO, are taking her record out of context. She made something like 380 decisions on the Appellate Court. Of those, 5 were accepted by the Supreme Court for review. Of those 5, 3 were reversed. And the Supreme Court’s record on reversals is roughly 60% of the cases they accept. Puts her squarely in the AVERAGE for ALL cases accepted by the Supreme Court.
As I said in the previous entry about her, find a better nit to pick.
ByteMe
May 28th, 2009
8:47 am
I swear George American, you are the best parody poster yet. Sometimes even better than Redneck Convert. Keep up the good work!
SOMALIDAWG
May 28th, 2009
8:47 am
1)Koran
2)Constitution
3)Bill of Rights
حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجد1
Rickster
May 28th, 2009
8:49 am
I couldn’t care less about her “richness of experience” comment. The one that scares me (and to me disqualifies her for the Supreme Court) is her comment that the appeals court level is “where policy is made.” That is the responsibility of the Executive & Legislative branches. It’s the Judicial branch’s responsibility to determine if the policy is Constitutional – not to implement a new policy of its own.
md
May 28th, 2009
8:49 am
“it should improve your opinion of Judge Sotomayor.”
More fun keeping to my agenda. One must have an agenda to post here or all you folks on the left would just agree with each other and think you were right about everything.
60% is still a fact, funny how context alters any and all situations. I still stand by the double standards afforded her on her comment, as I don’t share her experiences. My experiences say the white guy doesn’t make it out of the Senate hearings for making the exact same comment.
Time to hit and run.
Lord Help Us
May 28th, 2009
8:53 am
Hopefully, md will review the source of his ‘60% cases overturned’ talking point and question why that source only provided the inflammatory, out of context, sound bite.
Then, in the future, he will know that the source is unreliable, and likely, intentionally misleading narrow minds.
One can hope…
Lord Help Us
May 28th, 2009
8:55 am
Oh, nevermind, md cut and run after soiling himself…
CLEAN UP, aisle 4!!!!!!!
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
8:56 am
3 is 60% of 380? IS THERE A MATHEMATICIAN IN THE HOUSE?
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
8:59 am
“60% is still a fact” Try this on your math skills: 5 cases reviewed out of 380 decisions = .013s% of her total accepted for review. 3 cases overturned out of 380 decisions = .0078% of her total cases overturned. No matter how many times it is said…”60% of her cases overturned” is a LIE. The correct statement is “60% of her cases REVIEWED BY THE SUPREME COURT were overturned” – but even THAT is not enough information. Anyone who repeats that and fails to include the NUMBERS INVOLVED is perpetuating a false impression so vast that it amounts to yet another lie.
jt
May 28th, 2009
9:00 am
“If you were going to have open heart surgery, would you want to be operated on by a surgeon who was chosen because he had to struggle to get where he is or by the best surgeon you could find– even if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had every advantage that money and social position could offer?” –economist Thomas Sowell
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
9:05 am
From The American Prospect:
“Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
[...]
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
This is Samuel Alito, arguing that his experience of being the son of Italian immigrants, his knowledge of discrimination, gives him empathy that offers insight into such cases. How is this qualitatively different from Sotomayor saying that her knowledge of such things might maker her a better judge?”
Read the whole piece here:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=05&year=2009&base_name=stuart_taylor_and_pat_buchanan#115277
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
9:05 am
Is this the longer, more thoroughly researched piece or are we getting this in Chinese water torture form?
jt
May 28th, 2009
9:05 am
The big story is the Supreme Court. President Obama has found his nominee. She is Federal Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. A Latino woman. You know what that means — Ruth Bader Ginsburg will no longer be the hot chick on the court.- Jay Leno
ty webb
May 28th, 2009
9:05 am
If she had said “different conclusion” instead of “better conclusion”, that would have been okay. “Better” made it a racist comment, context doesn’t matter. I don’t think it’s going to hold her up anyway. She’ll be confirmed.
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
9:08 am
md,
I say the white guy making that statement wouldn’t even make it to the confirmation hearings. We would also be getting a daily dose here about how anybody that tried to defend said white guy was beneath snake droppings.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:09 am
“If she had said “different conclusion” instead of “better conclusion”, that would have been okay.”
So a “different” but WORSE decision would be “Ok” because you don’t like her choice of the word “better”?
Rickster
May 28th, 2009
9:11 am
You know, I would hope that two different Supreme Court Justices – regardless of race, gender, nationality, religious beliefs – whatever – would look at the facts of a case and come to the EXACT SAME conclusion – based on what the Constitution says, not the “richness of their experience.”
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:14 am
“I say the white guy making that statement wouldn’t even make it to the confirmation hearings. We would also be getting a daily dose here about how anybody that tried to defend said white guy was beneath snake droppings”
Your say so doesn’t make it true. If he was talking in the context of the experience of a white male why should there be any outcry of any susbstance?
Brad Steel
May 28th, 2009
9:14 am
Whiner,
Last time I heard someone say “eewwwww” it was in line for the big Hannah Montana show. He had on an “I love Zack Ephron” shirt.
Was that you?
ty webb
May 28th, 2009
9:14 am
Doggone,
Don’t understand your point.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
9:16 am
Mrs. G., let’s just move past the fact that your copy was from the American Prospect whose description below their title is “liberal intelligence” – and oxymoron if I ever saw one.
The difference between Alito and Sotomayor is that Alito is grounded in Constitutional deference and respect, and Sotomayer does not have that grounding. He would take that history of his family and see if it would be used in a ruling as based on the Constitution, and discard it if it could not be. I believe that she would take that same experience and use it to advance someone over another against Constitutional principles, as in the New Have case.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:16 am
“would look at the facts of a case and come to the EXACT SAME conclusion ”
I guess you just CRINGE then, every time there’s a 5 to 4 decision? What drugs are YOU on, and where can we find them? A nice rosy view of the world like that HAS to be based on some kind of mind altering substance.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:19 am
“Don’t understand your point.”
I refer you to the dictionary to learn the differenct between “different” and “better” A *better* decision is far perferable to a DIFFERENT, but BAD decision.
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
9:20 am
Rickster
A brother and sister, with the same genetic history, and the same environment for their formative years, won’t come to the EXACT SAME conclusion. “Richness of their experiences” is what we as humans bring to the table in all of our endeavors.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:21 am
“as in the New Have case.”
Isn’t that the one where she based her decision on EXISTING court precedent? The one where she DIDN’T change previously existing court principles? That one?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
9:21 am
Dave R
If you really could move past it you would not have mentioned it.
Your description of the difference between Alito and Sotomayor is based on your own personal opinion and the richness and fullness of your experience.
Deal with it.
Joey
May 28th, 2009
9:21 am
18+ continuous hours on the same subject. One might conclude:
Jay fears that confirmation of Ms. Sotomayor is not a given.
George American
May 28th, 2009
9:22 am
SOMALIDAWG,
The Koran doesn’t even make the top 10 books for the laws of God. The Bible is #1 by any decent ranking. Even the book of Mormon and L. Ron Hoover’s drivel is ranked ahead of Koran. And God didn’t even write the Koran. It was some guys form the middle east that ghost wrote it. Wanna-be pulp crap. The Koran hasn’t been a factor since the ’80’s.
What sort of squiggly comment do you have about that?
RW-(the original)
May 28th, 2009
9:23 am
Your say so doesn’t make it true. If he was talking in the context of the experience of a white male why should there be any outcry of any susbstance?
Nor does yours, but my life experience makes me come to a better conclusion from unknown facts than someone who lacks those same experiences.
/sarc
Gotta run kidz. See you upstairs for the next installment wherein Jay will probably be promoting Sonia for Sainthood.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
9:23 am
Oh and Dave R….read Title VII…..she followed precedent and did not
(te heehee) legislate from the bench.
Goldie
May 28th, 2009
9:25 am
yeaaa, Sonia — women rule (well, almost)!
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:26 am
“One might conclude: Jay fears that confirmation of Ms. Sotomayor is not a given.”
Or he REALLY enjoys watching the opponents to her confirmation turn themselves inside out trying to make things she said mean something they didn’t. Personally, I think it’s been a LOT of fun. Why shouldn’t he think so too?
lovelyliz
May 28th, 2009
9:27 am
Newt calling Sotomayor a racist is as credible as is his defense of marriage and the traditional family.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
9:29 am
George American
Your comments about the Koran are offensive.
ty webb
May 28th, 2009
9:29 am
Doggone,
My point is that someone’s race/background can influence their conclusion. People of different races/backgrounds can reach different opinions. That’s all fine. But it is racist when someone of a particular race says that their race allows them to reach a “better” conclusion than someone of another race. I’m aware of the differece between “different” and “better”, afterall, that’s what makes her statement racist.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:31 am
“Nor does yours, but my life experience makes me come to a better conclusion from unknown facts than someone who lacks those same experiences.”
What “unknown” facts? Your experience gives you insight to something no one else has discovered yet? Welcome to the world Leonardo.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
9:34 am
Hi Goldie!
Are are ya’? So good to see you.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
9:34 am
Doggone and Mrs. G. using bad law to make a ruling is bad justice. Plessy v. Ferguson was bad law, yet I don’t see you two arguing that THAT particular ruling be used to justify segregation.
Bottom line, you don’t ever DENY an achiever’s ability to get a promotion because someone who doesn’t measure up to the same standards is of another color, gender or ethnicity.
And Mrs. G.? My differences with Alito and Sotomayor are not based on any richness nor fullness of my experiences – just clearly written and firmly held Constitutional principles completely devoid of race, gender, ethnicity or stature. Something a sexist pig like you wouldn’t understand. Of course, I refer to your 8:15 comment as evidence.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:37 am
“But it is racist when someone of a particular race says that their race allows them to reach a “better” conclusion than someone of another race”
Not necessarily. That’s why the missing context is so much more important than her detractors want to admit. If she is talking IN THE CONTEXT of the experience of a Latina, then yes, her experience AS a Latina would give her better insight…and thus a better chance of making the right decision…than would the experience of a white male.
No matter how hard you try, you can’t leave out the context of her statement. Cherry-picking a single sentence out of a speech is nothing more than “gotcha” politics. It’s bad politics, it’s bad argument and it’s reprehensible. It amounts to reaching the level of a lie.
Donovan
May 28th, 2009
9:37 am
Here we go again. The Supreme Court line-up is open for bids and the left is in position to fill the slot with another hard luck story candidate. This one just happens to be a minority-based, bad record nomination who is being advertised as another emotion driven selectee. There is no need obviously to point out the blind folded symbol of the Court anymore. Memory serves me that it sure comes in handy to have a liberal Florida Supreme Court deciding who won the Gore race in Florida. This discussion about selecting the best man/woman for the job based on diversity is another smoke screen by the Democrats. May I remind you that the Democrats once used the saying, “sexual improprieties have nothing to do with the ability of running this country” from the Oval Office.
SOMILIDAWG
May 28th, 2009
9:37 am
G. American
“And God didn’t even write the Koran.”
همهٔ افراد بشر آزاد به دنیا میآیند و از دید حیثیت As opposed to bible?
Both books good. And very lots holiness.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:41 am
“Bottom line, you don’t ever DENY an achiever’s ability to get a promotion because someone who doesn’t measure up to the same standards is of another color, gender or ethnicity.”
You do if the test is skewed towards the experience of one particular race, gender or ethnicity.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:42 am
“bad record nomination ”
Proof?
AmVet
May 28th, 2009
9:42 am
I remember during the campaign last fall how the Republiconned’s oh-so respected leaders like Nutty Newt, BushCo, the RNC chair HeadRush and every neo-con still clinging to life in the hemorrhaging GOP, warned that the Uppity One would stack the Supreme Court with terrorist coddling baby killers.
I haven’t read anything about this woman yet, but is she one of those?
LOL.
And what can one possibly say about someone who posits that their god can kick the Islamo-gods arse? At least in terms of book sales.
Sure, the christo-fascists and religious frauds put their superstition and fairy tales above the US Constitution. And the rule of law. Which explains in great part why this hijacked GOP is imploding and it’s short term (and long?) future beyond dismal.
Fortunately the rest of America, the part that moved past the 18th century, does not…
dave
May 28th, 2009
9:43 am
Jay, what do you know, you’re just one of marginalized white guys. Nothing wrong with her statement, I guess for you that works, as long as it said by anybody other than a white guy…
Atlanta_Tiger_Fan
May 28th, 2009
9:43 am
I agree with other posters…if a white male had made similiar comments the liberal media would have called for people to rise up with their pitch forks and crucify him!! Typical of liberals…it’s fine when their way, but anything else is racist.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:46 am
“I agree with other posters…if a white male had made similiar comments the liberal media would have called for people to rise up with their pitch forks and crucify him!! ”
And if they did, it would be just as WRONG (IF he was talking in the context of the experience of a white male) as it is to take HER words out of context and try to make something out of them that isn’t there to be made.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
9:47 am
Doggone, and your proof that this test was skewed towards a particular race, gender or ethnicity is . . . what?
md
May 28th, 2009
9:48 am
Even if Obama appointed his own scrotum as Supreme Court nominiee, Bookman would leap for joy. Keep up the liberalisms Jay/AJC…bankruptcy is just around the corner.
SOMILIDAWG
May 28th, 2009
9:49 am
افراد بشر آزاد به دنیا میآیند و از دید حیثیت و حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجدان My God no kick arse.
Ocassionally he smotes thee.
jt
May 28th, 2009
9:51 am
“…[S]o long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.” ~ Voltaire
md
May 28th, 2009
9:52 am
Thanks Slawdog now please go to the back of the line, where YOU BELONG!
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
9:52 am
“Doggone, and your proof that this test was skewed towards a particular race, gender or ethnicity is . . . what?”
This really isn’t relative to the discussion, I’m sorry I went down that path. Her detractors are trying to claim she will “legislate from the bench” without any proof that is so. Her decision in THIS case shows that she IS willing to follow precedent, something that is the antithesis of “making laws from the bench”
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
9:53 am
Dave R
I don’t see Title VII as a bad law. (ITRAFOME)
Of course you don’t deny promotion for the capable as long as the standards are fair.
Am I a sexist because I think men are by virture of the physical and mental attributes are better athletes?
SOMALIDAWG
May 28th, 2009
9:54 am
و باید در برابر یکدیگر با روح برادری
?What is this “Slawdog”?
Shawny
May 28th, 2009
9:56 am
You have to hand it to the prez, he is a sly one indeed. Vote against the new pick and you are against women and minorities. A tough position indeed. Kind of like trying to explain why you would oppose the SPLOST (voluntary taxation) when someone tells you it is “for the kids”. How can you possibly vote against the kids?
Anyway, this guy brings up a good point:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/shapiro.scotus.identity/index.html
Would this person be the nominee if she weren’t Hispanic? Interesting. Would she? Is she that compelling of a nominee, ignoring her ethnicity? Is it fair to nominate her to satisfy an EEOC checkbox?
Jay
May 28th, 2009
9:57 am
I don’t feel marginalized, Dave.
Do you?
Everywhere I look — Congress, the Supreme Court, corporate board rooms — I see an awful lot of white males in places of power.
So … we’re marginalized? Really?
What would it take for you to NOT feel marginalized?
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:02 am
Dave R
Not having been a party to the specific case all I can in the way of proof is:
“The District Court found that the plaintiffs had established their prima facie case. However, they also found that New Haven had a legitimate reason for acting as it did: wanting to comply with the very same Title VII under which they are being sued. And they found that this reason was not, as the plaintiffs alleged, a mere pretext. Thus, they found for New Haven.
A lot turns on their finding that New Haven had a legitimate reason for throwing out the test. Here, the central points seem to be as follows: first, New Haven’s concern about violating Title VII was not just an idle worry. Title VII requires employers not just to inspect their hearts and not find any discriminatory intent, but to consider the racial impact of things like tests. And the EEOC, in interpreting this requirement, has given clear guidance about what impact counts as suspect:
“A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.”
The rates at which blacks and Hispanics passed the New Haven tests were well below 80% of the rate at which whites passed. That means that those tests were presumptively in violation of the law.”
Read the whole piece here:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/05/the-ricci-case.html
Bottom line Dave R, is that you don’t believe that tests can be skewed
as to race or gender or age.
Social scientists think they can.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:03 am
jt
funny aint it….
liberals have been posting that Voltaire quote for 8 years.
Tyranny is to some extent in the eye of the beholder.
SOMALIDAWG
May 28th, 2009
10:04 am
حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجدان هستند و باید در برابر یکدیگر با روح برادری رفتار Possible next on SC Muslim?همهٔ افراد بشر آزاد به دنیا میآیند و از دید حیثیت Life experiance many camels and many hungers.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:05 am
Shawny
Hi sweetie…..nice to talk to you last night!
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
10:05 am
So, let’s get this clear… The right-wing objection is to a fantasy of what liberals WOULD HAVE done (in their imaginations) if a white male judge HAD ONLY said the same out-of-context thing that Sotomayor said and were met with PRESUMED LIBERAL reactions based on the same bigoted-privilege paranoia and hysteria that characterizes THEIR OWN thinking?
Well, gosh. You go right ahead and rail against the imaginary liberals who were so “outraged” by your imaginary situation that they’re being unfair to your imaginary judge, then.
That’ll show us!
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
10:06 am
“Would this person be the nominee if she weren’t Hispanic?”
Was Harriet Miers nominated because she was a woman?
SOMALIDAWG
May 28th, 2009
10:07 am
Ms. G-
True liberals (the good kind) have been posting that since Al Gore invented the internet.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
10:09 am
“since Al Gore invented the internet.”
You DO know he never said that, don’t you?
DB, Gwinnettian
May 28th, 2009
10:13 am
So, let’s get this clear… The right-wing objection is to a fantasy of what liberals WOULD HAVE done (in their imaginations) if a white male judge HAD ONLY said the same out-of-context thing that Sotomayor said and were met with PRESUMED LIBERAL reactions based on the same bigoted-privilege paranoia and hysteria that characterizes THEIR OWN thinking?
Sad but true. Hey, look at it this way. IF they’ve got this thing paced like I imagine, next week their masters allow them to discover what “La Raza” means in English. That should be good for a coupla news cycles.
I really wish this weren’t just a matter of theatrics, but given the fundraising potential of a good SCOTUS dustup, that’s pretty much a foregone conclusion. Remember Mrs. Alito’s emotional exit from the proceedings when Sen. Graham asked her husband if he were, in fact, a “closet bigot?” Jolly good show!
I bet Sonia’s mom has it in her. She seems pretty feisty, still.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
10:13 am
Sorry, Mrs. G., but you don’t know, nor will you ever know what I believe in because you can’t conceive of someone who treats everyone equally regardless of any situation.
Of course tests can be skewed, however, there is no proof that these tests were skewed. Title VII is a numbers game, not an equality game. It can help IF, and only if, the tests are proven to be skewed towards a “minority” representation, but it goes too far in determining a threshold percentage that has to be met.
Doggone, I have no problem with justices legislating from the bench, as long as they legislate JUSTICE and EQUALITY according to the Constitution. Of course, my idea of an “activist judge” is someone who WON’T overturn a law that gives power to the Federal government that isn’t expressly described in the Constitution.
Normal
May 28th, 2009
10:15 am
George American, your 8:41 post really got me. PLEASE, tell me you
are not a Christian. Do you know the history of the Bible? It is no
more the difinitive word of God than “The Da Vinci Code” is. Read about
the Councils of Nicea and the Pagan Pope Constantine. I hope you are
not a Catholic Hater because your Bible was written by Catholics for
political reasons.
The Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are key. Are you a member
of the ACLU?, if not, why not? Their total mission in life is to defend the Bill of Rights. God protect us all from that kind of
BS.
Rickster
May 28th, 2009
10:16 am
I stand by my comment. Two people should be able to look at the equation 2+2 and come up with the answer “4.” Two judges should (or even 9) should be able to read the Constitution and reach the same conclusion on what it says – not what they “think” it says.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
10:18 am
Jay, is it possible to be marginalized if you don’t believe you are marginalized?
As long as some of us can continue to marginalize you, I think things will be just fine.
Kamchak
May 28th, 2009
10:21 am
Rickster
How will anyone reach any conclusion if they don’t “think?”
AmVet
May 28th, 2009
10:22 am
Alas, the downtrodden rich white American man. Never had a voice and still doesn’t…
John Lennon – Woman is the “N” of the World
booger
May 28th, 2009
10:22 am
I have to agree with Rickster. All the hoopla over her “Latina” comment says much less about her than 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.
jt
May 28th, 2009
10:22 am
Rickster- You wrote
Two people should be able to look at the equation 2+2 and come up with the answer “4.”
Two PEOPLE can do this. Unfortunantly, we are talking about LAWYERS.
The people who take the easy way out of college always have problems reasoning.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
10:24 am
Rickster, I’ll disagree with you on your point. There are a few (thankfully only a few) instances where intent of the Framers is in question, and due to imprecise 18th Century wording there will be some disagreement.
Not, however, the torturous redefining of the intent of the document that liberals love to do.
Doggone/GA
May 28th, 2009
10:24 am
“should be able to read the Constitution and reach the same conclusion on what it says – not what they “think” it says”
Anyone can quote the Constitution, but the Constitution is not written in hard, fast, unambiguous language. It’s relating a particular law TO the meaning of the Constitution that leads to different INTERPRETATIONS on applying the Constitutional provisions TO that law.
Jay
May 28th, 2009
10:25 am
“Two people should be able to look at the equation 2+2 and come up with the answer “4.” Two judges should (or even 9) should be able to read the Constitution and reach the same conclusion on what it says – not what they “think” it says.”
“Should?” Maybe in a dream world. Not in this world. Even Scalia and Thomas, the so-called “twins,” disagree from time to time.
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
10:28 am
Oy! Judge Sotomayor is neither the first Hispanic to be offered nomination to the Supreme Court nor, if confirmed, will she be the first to serve. While he declined it both times, Judah P. Benjamin was offered nomination twice, first by Millard Fillmore in 1853 and again by Franklin Pierce in 1854. Benjamin, a Sephardic, Ladino-speaking scholar considered by his contemporaries abroad as “the most brilliant mind in America,” was also the first Jewish American to be offered nomination to the Supreme Court. Benjamin Cardozo, nominated by Herbert Hoover, took his seat in 1932. He was Sephardic. Though he has been referred to as “Portuguese,” causing some to claim he was not “Hispanic,” the term Sephard means Spain and refers to those Jews who trace their ancestry to the Iberian Peninsula, many of whom still speak Ladino a 15th Century dialect of Spanish. It seems that in current climate of feel good political correctness, the fact that these two men were Jewish somehow negates the kind of Jew they were and Judge Sotomayor will be the “first,” and that’s that. This is sad in that it negates the rich diversity of the Hispanic community, the Jewish community, and the American community.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 28th, 2009
10:28 am
Dave R
Your first paragraph goes both way – except for the last 14 words.
If the District courts’ determination that the tests were skewed is insufficient proof for you well….so it goes.
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.
Pokey
May 28th, 2009
1:34 pm
So when the Supreme Court rules against her(again!) Ricci opinion won’t be following exisiting law and precedent? Her Ricci decision is indefensible. Plainly, she believes in the racial spoils system and that should be enough to disqualify her as a judge on any level.
Pokey
May 28th, 2009
1:38 pm
JB,
Would you have voted to confirm Roberts and Alito?
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
1:44 pm
Debbie, the problem is that both sides are all too willing to take one comment out of context and destroy a nominee because of it. To deny this reality is being intellectually dishonest.
Do I think Sotomayer is a racist because of her comment? No. I don’t have enough information to make that judgment. Do I think it was an unfortunate comment to make from someone who is supposed to be impartial regarding the law? Yes. Do I think she will make a lousy Supreme Court justice? Yes. That is my opinion based on some of her rulings, not because Hope & Change nominated her.
But the whole “you Republicans love to take one comment out of context” line is laughable when you know very well that if a white Republican nominee said the exact opposite, you and every other lib on this blog would be on him/her like white on rice.
It would be nice if you could at least be intellectually honest about this.
Jake
May 28th, 2009
1:46 pm
Debbie – Me too. I want someone that passed the exam, regardless of their race/gender. That’s the qualification part of the Sotomayor argument. Is she qualified to be a SC justice or is she just getting the job because she’s female and Latina? I think she’s very qualified. I see her speech as saying while she strives to overcome her natural biases (presumably in favor of affirmative action, minorities and women), she doesn’t think anyone completely overcomes their upbringing. Personally, I’ll take a little affirmative action if we can keep Roe v Wade.
DebbieDoRight
May 28th, 2009
1:57 pm
Dave R: I AM trying my best to be intellectually honest — but I can’t discount the fact that a large portion of my and judging by some of the comments on this board, and a lot of other people’s comments and reactions are tethered to their life’s experiences!!
For instance, two years ago when the Don Imus/Rutgers controversy came about — there were a lot of comments not this board by people of non-color who just didn’t understand why a lot of black females were indignant over his comments!! (Imus later on apologized and said he was just trying to be cool and didn’t mean anything by it)
Were they insensitive? No, I don’t think so — it’s just that their life experience couldn’t understand what the heck the fuss was about!! It’s the same with racial profiling. I have 5 members of my family who are in law enforcement; and they’ll tell you point blank that YES there is racial profiling!! However, a large part of the non-color population believe that it’s a myth! Why? Because it’s not in their reality. They’re basing their opinions on THEIR life experiences!!!
Another example: I’m in an interracial marriage. When my hubby lived in california he and I could walk down the street and no one would bat an eye here in Georgia it’s totally different. I get stepped to by black men who put me down for being with a white man, while they have a white woman on their arm! So my life’s experience dealing with the “other” interracial relationship will be different from ——heck I don’t know Kobe Bryant’s per se. (that’s probably a really BAD example……good thing I’m studying to become a TAX LAWYER — I don’t have to wax poetically on a subject, just state laws, by-laws, and precedents).
DebbieDoRight
May 28th, 2009
2:13 pm
there were a lot of comments not this board
That should read “there were a lot of comments ON this board”…….sorry!!
josef nix
May 28th, 2009
2:18 pm
Pop test time for the ethnically aware multi-culturalists:
1) Who was the first American Indian to run for congress?
2) What is the significance of Fisher v Allen?
3) Who was the first American Indian Senator?
4) What is the highest office yet held by an American Indian?
5) Who is Bud Adams?
Answers:
1) Mushulatubbe, Mississippi Choctaw, 1830
2) Mississippi Supreme Court ruling of 1834 recognizing the right of women to own and dispose of property in their own names separate of men, ruling that Chickasaw law superseded British law, incorporated in the state constitution of 1839, a “first” for women’s rights
3) Robert Owen, Cherokee, 1907 representing Oklahoma. Owen was author of the bill creating the Federal Reserve, a bill he later came to repudiate, calling it a mistake.
4) US Vice-President Charles Curtis, , Kiowa, 1928, Hoover administration
5) Founder, Owner, Chairman of the Board, President and Chairman of the Board of the Tennesse Titans/Oilers NFL franchise, Cherokee
Didn’t know? Why not? Aren’t you culturally sensitive, White, Black, Hispanic?
hryder
May 28th, 2009
2:27 pm
Truely dishearting that the vast majority of the media reporting on various aspects of life seem to be incapable of understanding that they possess the bias of the totality of their life’s experiences. The Supreme Court Nominee stated that she understands these inherent bias. We would be a much enhanced society if the majority of the populous understood this rather than under half. Yet the general society in the USA is the one on the face of the earth in which more people would prefer to reside than any other. This also speaks volumes of those residing within its borders who would like nothing short of its complete demise.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
2:36 pm
Are these the same people that didn’t stand up to it for 8 years when GW was driving the economic bus right over the cliff? No, not humping your leg today RW. It’s all in fun.
Copyleft
May 28th, 2009
2:42 pm
Dave R: No, you haven’t answered the question. You’ve simply announced that the affirmative-action rule is unjust.
What you haven’t tried to explain is WHY and HOW it’s unjust.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
2:54 pm
RetLTC May 28th, 2009 12:34 pm SAID: 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.
Chris SAYS: Couldn’t have said it better myself. She’s MORE THAN QUALIFIED plus the 2 LAYERS OF added icing on the cake: LATINO and FEMALE!!! Now the Republican Party, if they oppose her (and their unofficial spokespersons i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and FOX News already do) will lose the rest of the Latino vote for the foreseeable future. So good bye 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016….AT LEAST. One Republican analyst estimated that they need 40% of the Latino vote to win any Presidential election. Now, they’re going to be lucky to get 10%-15%. And guess what: the Latino population is growing with each passing year!!!
The new Republican Party slogan: KEEP ON DIGGING BOYS!!!
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:03 pm
Copylefty, you’re being unusually dense today . . . even for you.
I said that if Sotomayer used the 4/5ths artificially-generated rule of discrimination, without endeavoring to find out if the test was in any way skewed to another ethnicity, race or gender (as she appears t have done in this case), then her ruling is unjust and should be overturned.
If there is proven discrimination, I’m all for ruling against it (affirmative action not being the way to solve that problem) and making sure there is a level playing field for all. But to LOWER standards for the achievers who actually worked hard and passed the test, especially when it comes to public safety such as firefighting, in order to fit into some arbitrary percentage is simply inexcusable.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:07 pm
Chris, instead of parroting the “She’s qualified” line time after time, try this:
Tell us why you consider her qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
Make the case. The silence will be deafening.
But here’s the kicker. Don’t use any comparisons to any current or former justices on the Supreme Court. Make the case that she is qualified based on her judicial accomplishments and rulings based on the U.S. Constitution.
Go ahead. Make the case.
The silence will be deafening.
RetLTC
May 28th, 2009
3:08 pm
Thank you Chris! Jeb Bush gets it. He has endorsed a Latino candidate over Charley Crist. But it will take more than Jeb Bush to undo the damage caused by Rush, Hannity, and the nativist, ethnocentric, xenophobic, wing of the republican party. And yes Chris, they’ll surely keep digging. They still think targeting and bashing Latinos will get them elected. And one more beautiful thing. It will be Latinos that get to shovel the dirt into the grave. RIP GOP.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
3:14 pm
And about the Ricci case which the conservatives are whining about: Here are the facts:
New Haven administered a test for promotions, and the results of the test essentially made only whites eligible for promotion with no blacks or hispanics eligible. The city deemed that the test had an inappropriately disparate impact on minorities. If you apply a test that has such a disparate impact and you can’t demonstrate that the test really is demonstrative of job performance, then you have committed a Title VII violation. As the panel says, the difficulty here is not that New Haven was engaging in affirmative action, it’s that they were attempting to avoid a potential Title VII violation by certifying the test results.
Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of New Haven that it would indeed have been in violation of Title VII, AND THAT THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW!!!
It’s really ironic that conservatives rail against “activist judges” but here, they are blaming her for actually following the LETTER OF THE LAW. It’s not up to her to change the law as it’s written. That’s what politicians are supposed to do. I guess you’re only an activist judge when you rule against conservative causes.
Bottom Line: This case is not about affirmative action. Judge Sotomayor declined to legislate from the bench. And Republicans are attacking her for it???
Shocking!!!!
Jake
May 28th, 2009
3:19 pm
Copyleft – You’ve avoided the answer, see my 1:26. Affirmative action is merely current discrimination under the rationale of correcting prior discrimination. Wouldn’t it be more just to kust not discriminate at all? BTW, I’ll take the doctor with the 40 MCAT, you can have the one that got into med school because she was an Afghani and Johns Hopkins promotes diversity.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
3:32 pm
Dave R May 28th, 2009 3:07 pm SAID: ………But here’s the kicker. Don’t use any comparisons to any current or former justices on the Supreme Court. Make the case that she is qualified based on her judicial accomplishments and rulings based on the U.S. Constitution.
Chris SAID: And why not compare her to current and former justices??? Because it makes her critics look stupid because her record is better than any of the current sitting justices at the time of their nominations? You aren’t making sense.
BTW, my beloved Wikipedia has a lengthy list of her rulings and accomplishments. Maybe you should take a look see. You might learn something.
Sharecropper
May 28th, 2009
3:38 pm
Sometimes I think the bloggers are so shrill as to be incomprehensible, particularly regarding what they love to refer to as the “mainstream media”. Other times, as now, I join them in full-throated cry. When is our mass media going to react to Newt Gringrich, the disgraced Gingrich, out there accusing a Democrat court nominee of being racist when she answered the same questions in exactly the same weay as Alito and Roberts answered them, but to which the embezzler Newt Gingrich was silent?
Gingrich actually shut down the government in a pique, only to discover that Bill Clinton had the bigger balls and called his bluff. Then he slinked off after being caught stealing from taxpayers for a phony baloney college course in Georgia. He is a sleazy character, Georgia ought to be ashamed, and daily newspapers and television news ought to be all over his case. Are you all still terrified of Republicans?
Jake
May 28th, 2009
3:41 pm
Chris – Re Ricci It’s not nearly as cut and dried regarding the law and Title VII as you suggest. And rather than just stating my opinion is fact, as you have done, I can actually support my argument. The first part of an SC case is the SC deciding whther or not to hear the case. Most cases taken to the SC don’t get reviewed. So the simple fact that the SC heard the case means the law, as it appiles to this case, is not cut and dried. The reality of our judicial system is that the ‘letter of the law’ in this case will be the SC ruling, not Sotomayor’s appeals court ruling. And there seems to be some conjecture that the SC will reverse the circuit court’s ruling.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:45 pm
Thanks for not playing Chris.
One of these days, you’ll be man enough to play with the big boys.
I don’t CARE what wiki says. Those are FACTS. Why do YOU think she is qualified as regards her judicial thinking and her Constitutional thoughts?
Do you LIKE being a parrot?
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
3:47 pm
BTW, Chris, already looked at wiki days ago. Hence my judgment that she is NOT qualified to serve. But then, I used reason and logic for my decision.
Who told you what your opinion should be?
Jake
May 28th, 2009
3:55 pm
BTW Chris one cannot be ‘FEMALE AND LATINO’ because a female is Latina. Keep working on that GED and one day you’ll get a job and won’t have time to blog.
JamC
May 28th, 2009
4:04 pm
Bookman conveniently forgot to mention that in 2005, Sotomayor asserted that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” That’s not what the framers of our Contitution intended. The executive and legislative branches make laws and policies, not judges.
This woman is downright scary.
Jake
May 28th, 2009
4:15 pm
Chris – Here’s a little something from title VII that the court’s are trying to interpret through Ricci. “nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Did New Haven administer a professionally developed ability test? Yes. Was the action upon the results intended to discriminate because of race? I think so; the action of New Haven was to throw out the test results because only whites and one Hispanic passed. IMHO Ricci et al were the victims of reverse discrimination and I believe the SC will overturn the appeals court’s decision. But does that mean Sotomayor is too biased, prejudiced, racist, or ignorant of the law to serve on the SC? I don’t think so. There have been tons of SC rulings in my lifetime where in effect one person decided the law of the land, Roe v Wade hangs on a 5-4 decision. Does that make the four dissenting jurists unfit to serve? Of course not, they just have different opinions.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:32 pm
Jake May 28th, 2009 3:55 pm SAID: BTW Chris one cannot be ‘FEMALE AND LATINO’ because a female is Latina. Keep working on that GED and one day you’ll get a job and won’t have time to blog.
Chris SAYS: Thanks. I stand corrected. Sorry, but not being a born native of this country does have its inherent disadvantages
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:35 pm
Dave R May 28th, 2009 3:47 pm: BTW, Chris, already looked at wiki days ago. Hence my judgment that she is NOT qualified to serve. But then, I used reason and logic for my decision. Who told you what your opinion should be?
Chris SAYS: I guess I missed that logic and reason. I especially like that little ploy of yours about removing the yard stick to compare her to other justices on the SC. If you used that logic to prove her not “qualified” then it’s patently flawed.
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:44 pm
JamC May 28th, 2009 4:04 pm SAID: Bookman conveniently forgot to mention that in 2005, Sotomayor asserted that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” That’s not what the framers of our Contitution intended. The executive and legislative branches make laws and policies, not judges. This woman is downright scary.
Chris SAYS: Did you see the context of that remark??? Also, Scalia made essentially the same comment. I don’t hear the right-wing complaining about him? Here are some of the things he said:
“”Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194,
744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”"
“”…….In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often “make law,” since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court. See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376–377 (1987) (dissenting opinion).”"”"
You can read the entire story using the following link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/antonin-scalia-judges-mak_n_208531.html
Chris Salzmann
May 28th, 2009
4:47 pm
Dave R May 28th, 2009 3:45 pm SAID: Thanks for not playing Chris. One of these days, you’ll be man enough to play with the big boys. I don’t CARE what wiki says. Those are FACTS. Why do YOU think she is qualified as regards her judicial thinking and her Constitutional thoughts? Do you LIKE being a parrot?
Chris SAYS: I don’t play silly games. As I said earlier, compared to the sitting justices, she has more experience. Also the fact that only 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the SC versus 100% of Alito’s at the time of his nomination.
If the “big boys” want to play in the sand box then, sorry, I must decline.
Dave R
May 28th, 2009
4:58 pm
Chris want a cracker?
Do you have a mind of your own or not?
Here’s how this works, Chris. We don’t use a yardstick like comparisons to other people to see if someone is qualified or not. We use reason and logic. As in, try reading a few cases and subsequent opinions she has rendered and tell us why you think she followed good judicial judgment or not, and if they were in line with the U.S. Constitution.
That is what determines QUALIFICATIONS, Chris.
These are not silly games, except to people like you who treat the U.S. Constitution as a punch line. We are talking about how this country will be shaped by law, and whether our freedoms will be protected or destroyed.
Man it up Chris. This isn’t a game.
danjonglee
May 28th, 2009
6:41 pm
I guess having the same views as La Raza will have an impact on your judgement…
GMan
May 28th, 2009
6:53 pm
It should amaze no one that the old, crusty, and dusties think that Sonia Sotomayor based upon a sentence taken out of context is racist. After all, that is how the old, crusty, and dusties think as a learned way of life. If they had their way everyone on the Supreme Court would look just like them!
Steve
May 28th, 2009
7:40 pm
How did Associate Justice O’Connor’s vote in a 5-4 vote become the “deciding” vote? There is no such thing as a “deciding” vote…5 voted one way, 4 voted the other. All five are equal, none are worth more or less than the others.
N.J.
May 28th, 2009
9:28 pm
Of course the Republican statements about the rate at which Sotomayors cases being overturned is based on a complete distortion.
60 percent of Sotomayors cases were overturned by the court. The average of all the other appellate court justices having their cases reversed is 75 percent. Lower than the other appellate court justices.
Next in order for the Supreme Court to ACCEPT a case from the lower appeal courts they have to look at a case and decide that the judge in some way made a judicial error that would in some way make it possible to arrive at a different decision.
A total of 300 of cases heard by Sotomayor in the last 11 years were sent to the Supreme Court for review by the lawyers of those who lost the case. The Supreme Court rejected reviewing 295 of them stating that they would have come up with the same decicion that Sotomayor would have. A total of five cases out of that 300 were accepted for judicial review by the Supreme Court and they reversed three of that five, and agreed with two.
On the whole Sotomayor has an a record of case decisions that are far more in the main stream than either Alito or Roberts, who have issued decisions that are very far out of the mainstream of judicial thought over their entire careers.
There have been times that Scalia, no judicial liberal himself, has scolded Roberts for the pretzel like methods by which he stretches and twists the law to come up with opinions that are totally out of the mainstream to come up with decisions that are virtually the opposite of past precedent by cutting holes though that precedent using extremely non constructionists methods to so so.
Roberts opinion on Roe V Wade does the same thing. He basically states that the government cannot make abortion legal, because the constitution does not state that it is ILLEGAL, therefore the decision to make it legal should not be made. This neglects the obvious, that since there is no historical or constitutional precedent for it having been made ILLEGAL in the first place, there should never have been laws that made it illegal so there would be no need to make it legal again.
This also occured in one of Roberts decisions on electioneering by right to life groups. A case three years earlier. .In McConnell v FEC the Renquist Court upheld the McCain Feingold Acts ban on electioneering communications. Basically the law prohibited Right to Life Groups specifically doing adds to support a particular candidate. That was considered a “campaign contribution”
However just three years later, the court hears FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life, in which Roberts simply cuts holed in the McCain Feingold law saying that he concurs with the McConnell decision, but he is going to make exceptions for THESE advertisements that have to to with right to life. Scalia then simply railed at Roberts stating that “This faux judicial restraint is judicial obfuscation” What the Roberts decision was happened to be one of the clearest and most direct examples of conservative judicial activism since before the Civil War.
What he did was exempt right to life organizations and allow them to do commercial advertisements for particular candidates and political parties, but excluded everyone else from doing so.
Of course Alito has very ACTIVISTLY supported the idea of faith based initiatives. However Scalia dropped a bombshell on him in Hein v Freedom from Religion in which Roberts and Alito decided that taxpayers could NOT sue the government for using THEIR tax dollars to support religious organizations or any organization, which has been precedent since the 1968 case Flast v Cohen. Since 1968 the courts have ruled that the taxpayers DO have the right to sue in cases where the government uses taxpayer money to support religious organizations. Alito and Roberts, in extreme conservative judicial activism ruled that taxpayers have no right to question how government gives money to religious organizations and Scalia slammed them by joining the opposition, Roberts and Kennedy asserting that all taxpayers have the right to question how their money is spent when it is being given to faith based organizations.
For all their assertions to uphold precedent, the two Bush conservative appointees have made some very extremely activist decisions by making “exceptions” to the law in cases when it involved conservative purposes. These exceptions allowed the laws not to apply to particular conservative groups. So Roberts allowed Right to Life Groups to campaign for Right to life candidates and political parties, but denied pro choice groups from doing the same for pro choice candidates and political parties. This is the heart of judicial activism. Making rulings that make exceptions to the law for people and groups on one side of the political specrtrum and applying them those on the opposing side.
The title “Judicial Activist” is another one of those Republican slur terms which have no substance in reality. If one looks back at the history of Sotomayor and compares it to Roberts, Alito and Scalia, the three conservatives have shown a history of making exceptions towards conservative leaning groups, while strictly applying the letter of the law with liberals and liberal leaning groups.
On the other hand, Sotomayor has been seen to rule for labor in one case, and AGAINST labor in another similar case based on differences in the cases. She has ruled pro-life in the only case that she has heard on the issue, when other statements indicate that she is may be pro-choice though her actual position on abortion is unknown. However among Hispanics in her age group, more Hispanics are pro-life than pro choice, and Hispanic women in her age group are more pro-life than non hispanic women in her age group. However she did write the opinion in a case that opposed the Bush Policy to not give foreign aid to nations that used abortion as part of their planned parenthood policies. Sotomayor’s opinion favored Bush’s position. Basically Sotomayors opinion which supported the Mexico City Policy was opposite of Obama’s recent overturning of the Mexico City Policy. Obama now allows federal money to be sent overseas to countries and organization in those countries that perform abortions or offer it as an option or offer information where women can get abortions and Sotomayor supported the policy to deny it in the opinion she wrote on the case. In another case, Sotomayor upheld the right of pro-lifers to protest when she overturned part of a summary judgement against pro lifers when they caused damage to a clinic that performed abortions or prevented women going to have abortions from entering the clinics. In both cases she supported the government’s rights to favor one position or the other as policy and to change that position and in another she upheld the right of right to lifers to protest at womens clinics as long as they do not destroy private property while doing so.
Copyleft
May 29th, 2009
7:27 am
DaveR: I guess you’ve done the best you can at trying to explain why affirmative action is “unjust.” Unfortunately, you’ve failed. It isn’t. Setting racial-preference rules into place to enable minorities to break into formerly all-white strongholds IS just… your insistence that it’s “unfair” to the privileged majority simply doesn’t hold water.
As for Sotomayor’s qualifications: that’s easy. Her EXPERIENCE. She’s been a court of appeals judge for over a decade, as well as a district judge before that. She ruled against management during the baseball strike and she’s ruled in favor free speech on several cases. She correctly noted that states can set gun-control laws different from the federal level. She struck the middle ground on privacy rights, showing her as a MODERATE, not the “raving far-left loony” that so many ignorant right-wingers instantly assume any time Obama (himself a moderate) mentions someone’s name.
Seems pretty qualified to me. Of course, all of this is an outrage, an absolute ATROCITY, to the wingnuts… but that’s just further proof that she’s a good choice for America. There’s nothing they hate more than a good idea.
josef nix
August 21st, 2009
6:38 am
USinUK–was on my way out the door to do my part in “civilizing” our little “Americans,” you know those from south of the US border here in the Americas, but I couldn’t resist, Irregular Paul sounds like my kind of Southerner, “Yank(ees) are responsible for every ill known to mankind from original sin to global warming.” Come to think of it, he sounds like Jay’s kind of Yankee, “Southerners are responsible…etc.) Post him a Buffy Ste. Marie song or two tonight says the Unmentionable…have a good one…