Next even now, she has MORE judicial experience than Chief Justice Roberts OR Justice Alito if you INCLUDE their years on the Supreme Court. She is the most experienced judicial nominee in the last 70 years. If she is confirmed she will be the ONLY person sitting on the court who has served in EVERY level of the judiciary in the country.

The “wise latina” statment comes from the middle of a huge paragraph in which she points disagrees with a statement made by Sandra Day O’Connor in which she states a “wise old man and a wise old woman will ALWAYS reach the same decision” Sotomayor states that this is not the case, and gives examples of when they do, and when they dont.

Next, the Republicans make statements about how many times the Supreme Court has reversed Sotomayors decisions, but fail to rate that it has been the LOWER than the average annual rate of reversals for all the appeal courts over the last 11 years. The average rate is 75 percent, and Sotomayors lifetime rate for her time on the appellate court is 60 percent.

What can you express from the political party that chose the prince of darkness as their last vice president.

[O]ne of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum….rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then “as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically” but instead of “acting intuitively.”…

Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with…Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases…. whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society…. I accept the thesis of… Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School…that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought….

[B]ecause I accept the proposition that, as [Yale Law School Professor Judith] Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as… Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives – no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure….that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

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

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

http://womensissues.about.com/b/2009/05/27/the-racist-uproar-over-sotomayors-wise-latina-comment.htm

One must accept a single thing from these conservative distortions and outright prevarications. That these make them singularly unqualified to serve on any court in any place at anytime.

The very fact that she was at a University of California ‘diversity’ lecture should disqualify her in the minds of every straight, white, protestant male in America.

But it wont. The communist media will hide any relevant information about this woman until her big butt is firmly planted on the Supreme Court…

… for the rest of her life.

Republican Senator John Danforth on Clarence Thomas on July 16, 1991: “His empathy is with the disadvantaged people of this country. He would bring a perspective to the Supreme Court which nobody else brings.”

Fu(|3ing Hippie.

For us real (paleo) conservatives, our heros are Founding Fathers such as Jefferson, Samuel Adams & Patrick Henry (& rare modern patriots like Dr.Ron Paul).

Consider this quote:

“Within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example, to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess.

One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.

I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can find, one who meets the high standards I will demand for all my appointments.

It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists. I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench.”

Who said it? Some bleeding heart liberal? A (gasp) socialist? Nope, it’s the hero of the right, Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980.