Sonia Sotomayor

[lockmat]

I have not been keeping up with her at all so I just decided to start doing a little research.

I type her name in to google news and the quote that comes up is this...

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

...seriously?

What are some things that stand out to yall from what you know so far? At first I heard that she would simply be replacing another left-leaning judge but then I was told she was much more to the left than the person she's replacing.

[EMME]

Answered my own question. Disregard this post.

[lockmat]

EMME, taking note of your editing.

but for sources sake etc...

The anger is aimed at comments Sotomayor made at a University of California-Berkeley lecture in 2001. "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," Sotomayor said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...s_a_racist.html

[EMME]

I was actually wondering if it was her. I had second thoughts because it was said in the second person but then below, google said, "more by Sonia Sotomayor." Guess I shouldn't have assumed.

Who said it?

EDIT:

It was her...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...s_a_racist.html

I was wondering what the context was which is very important. If this is correct, I understand her statement. From MediaMatters.org:

In May 27 articles about the politics surrounding Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination, both the Politico and The Washington Post omitted the context of her 2001 remark that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." In fact, when Sotomayor made that statement, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining "race and sex discrimination cases."

To read the entire article click here: http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270005

[lockmat]

I was wondering what the context was which is very important. If this is correct, I understand her statement. From MediaMatters.org:

In May 27 articles about the politics surrounding Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination, both the Politico and The Washington Post omitted the context of her 2001 remark that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." In fact, when Sotomayor made that statement, she was specifically discussing the importance of judicial diversity in determining "race and sex discrimination cases."

To read the entire article click here: http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270005

From the same nydaily article:

In a Twitter. post Wednesday afternoon, Gingrich wrote, "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism."

I'm not so sure the context justifies it.

What if the tables were turned and a white male said, "I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences in a rich suburban area would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a poor Latina woman who has never lived that life."

[EMME]

From the same nydaily article:

I'm not so sure the context justifies it.

What if the tables were turned and a white male said, "I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences in a rich suburban area would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a poor Latina woman who has never lived that life."

Well, in fact that happens every day of every year and has for generations.

[jgriff]

I would think the exact opposite would be true. Only a male could be un-biased on women's issues becuase they don't affect him. Women should recuse themselves from cases concerning discrimination against females.

That being said, I think she should be confirmed if she's qualified. How she would judge on future cases shouldn't even be a consideration. The Democrats won, they deserve to be able to appoint qualified people no matter if Republicans agree with their views or not. Let's see if that happens this time.

[arisegundo]

I like that Republicans are actually making her favorite foods a mark of her horrible Latina racist partiality.

link

This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo

[lockmat]

Well, in fact that happens every day of every year and has for generations.

I'm not saying it's okay. But saying, "he hit me first" does not justify it.

I would agree with Sandra Day O'Conner.

In her talk, she disagreed with an approach to judging expressed by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the US Supreme Court. Justice O'Connor was frequently quoted as saying that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.

"I'm not so sure that I agree with the statement," Sotomayor said. "I would hope 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."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0527/p02s08-usju.html

Wisdom is the key. It can be gained from many different experiences. Are all poor people wise because of their experiences? No. Neither is the same true white men who were raised rich. Wisdom is knowledge applied anyway. Just because something happens to you doesn't mean you're wise. Just b/c she overcame those things doesn't mean she's wise. It could mean she's just smart, or both. Her upbringing, whether she was rich or poor is no matter to me.

[EMME]

I'm not saying it's okay. But saying, "he hit me first" does not justify it.

I would agree with Sandra Day O'Conner.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0527/p02s08-usju.html

Well I have to agree with you there. For me, I think it is important to keep a mix in there so that more than just the white male perspective is represented. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian-American, etc. perspectives not wrong, just different. The more in the mix, the more we can learn from each other's experience.

I don't yet know much about Ms. Motomayor, so I really don't have a dog in this hunt.

[lockmat]

Well I have to agree with you there. For me, I think it is important to keep a mix in there so that more than just the white male perspective is represented. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian-American, etc. perspectives not wrong, just different. The more in the mix, the more we can learn from each other's experience.

I don't yet know much about Ms. Motomayor, so I really don't have a dog in this hunt.

I disagree and do think a mix should be important.

The blindfold in Lady Justice is important. People used to agree on "the best person getting the job." If they happen to be male, female, hispanic, white, black or whatever, and they can be objective, good, hire them.

[arisegundo]

If they happen to be male, female, hispanic, white, black or whatever, and they can be objective, good, hire them.

She's had eleven years of federal court cases, and even longer as a fair and competent trial lawyer, making her the most experienced nominee in recent history. I've yet to see a substantiated claim of a lack of objectivity on her part for all this time. Does one remark about her life experience informing her views disqualify her?

[TheNiche]

Well I have to agree with you there. For me, I think it is important to keep a mix in there so that more than just the white male perspective is represented. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian-American, etc. perspectives not wrong, just different. The more in the mix, the more we can learn from each other's experience.

Well hey, I mean the constitution was crafted by a monoculture of affluent white males and look at how poor-off we are as a consequence. If only they'd had the perspective of some African warlords (the very same ones who sold off their own populous to Dutch slave traders for guns)...yeah, we would've been so much better off. Or perhaps if they'd had the input of Chinese people, who at the time were engaged in an emperor-led literary inquisition. ...much better off.

Those who are most qualified to hold this position such as this are brilliant legal scholars, people who are most capable of suppressing their own personal perspective, and instead rely upon cold calculated reason. It doesn't matter what their skin color is or how they grew up. What does matter is the body of their work.

[ihop]

Her statement is, on its most basic level, talking about how someone with more experiences to draw can come to better conclusions. While people can agree & disagree whether this is a positive way for a justice to approach the law, I'm not sure you can use such a statement to paint her as more or less liberal, as some people out there have done.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ayor/index.html

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. 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.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. 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. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

[lockmat]

Well hey, I mean the constitution was crafted by a monoculture of affluent white males and look at how poor-off we are as a consequence. If only they'd had the perspective of some African warlords (the very same ones who sold off their own populous to Dutch slave traders for guns)...yeah, we would've been so much better off. Or perhaps if they'd had the input of Chinese people, who at the time were engaged in an emperor-led literary inquisition. ...much better off.

Those who are most qualified to hold this position such as this are brilliant legal scholars, people who are most capable of suppressing their own personal perspective, and instead rely upon cold calculated reason. It doesn't matter what their skin color is or how they grew up. What does matter is the body of their work.

You get that from my signature? jk

I'm not qualifying or disqualifying her. Yes, she should be applauded if most of her body of work is shown to be objective. But the proper process is through vetting.

Maybe someone, redscare, can help kind of explain this. In general, it doesn't seem good, but I don't understand the explanation given. The article is about the case where she ruled for the black firefighters who were upset after failing the promotional test and said it was biased against blacks, and in doing so white and hispanic guys did not get promoted who received higher grades.

Here is the explanation as to why what her and others did was okay.

"The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," wrote Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee and long-time mentor to Sotomayor, in a scathing dissent. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

Sotomayor's supporters defended the one-paragraph opinion, saying the law was clear and that, procedurally, the appellate panel had done nothing wrong with its summary order. In a conference call organized by the White House, several said brief orders are not unusual in those circumstances.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7691708&page=1

[arisegundo]

Well hey, I mean the constitution was crafted by a monoculture of affluent white males and look at how poor-off we are as a consequence. If only they'd had the perspective of some African warlords (the very same ones who sold off their own populous to Dutch slave traders for guns)...yeah, we would've been so much better off. Or perhaps if they'd had the input of Chinese people, who at the time were engaged in an emperor-led literary inquisition. ...much better off.

Neither African warlords nor Chinese people formed part of the American populace at the time, so what's your point?

[lockmat]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ayor/index.html

Is pity and empathy acceptable when teaching a lawyer/judge how to rule if something or someone is right, wrong or guilty, not guilty? Just wondering, never been to law school.

[TheNiche]

Neither African warlords nor Chinese people formed part of the American populace at the time, so what's your point?

What if we'd thrown some American Indian chiefs into the constitutional convention? How would their experience of infighting amongst various small tribes have contributed to a system that would've set up a federal system of government?

My whole point here is that racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic diversity doesn't always yield the best results. It shouldn't be any kind of priority. Reason should be the lone priority.

[jgriff]

Is pity and empathy acceptable when teaching a lawyer/judge how to rule if something or someone is right, wrong or guilty, not guilty? Just wondering, never been to law school.

The people who write the laws should be concerned with things like empathy. Judges should have no emotional attachement to cases whatsoever.

[arisegundo]

What if we'd thrown some American Indian chiefs into the constitutional convention? How would their experience of infighting amongst various small tribes have contributed to a system that would've set up a federal system of government?

My whole point here is that racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic diversity doesn't always yield the best results. It shouldn't be any kind of priority. Reason should be the lone priority.

Those who are flailing their arms over Sotomayor don't seem to have much, if any of a reason-based argument against her. A National Review guy has a problem with the "unnatural" way she pronounces her last name. Then there's the pig-feet "concern" I noted above. This stuff reads like an Onion article.

Reason supports her confirmation. No nominee is going to be 100 percent cold and rational, seeing as we're not discussing the Supreme Court of Vulcan. Her record, not her views on chickpeas and empathy, speak for her capacity.

[lockmat]

The people who write the laws should be concerned with things like empathy. Judges should have no emotional attachement to cases whatsoever.

That's exactly what I was thinking, just making sure.

Which means the quote by ihop, and I know it's not by Sonia, is a wrong view of what matters.

[ihop]

That's exactly what I was thinking, just making sure.

Which means the quote by ihop, and I know it's not by Sonia, is a wrong view of what matters.

The quote illustrates that it's a poor criteria by which to judge her politics (as many 'out there' are doing), not a value judgment on how much experience should affect how they consider cases.

[crunchtastic]

Reason supports her confirmation. No nominee is going to be 100 percent cold and rational, seeing as we're not discussing the Supreme Court of Vulcan. Her record, not her views on chickpeas and empathy, speak for her capacity.

Thanks, you saved me a much longer post. Never trust anyone who demands 100% reason anymore than you would trust someone who proposes 100% faith.

It is no longer the 18th century. 'cold calculated reason' in the context of the much-loved quote was an intellectual by-product of its time, a reaction to the medieval oppression of the church-- much as 'diversity' now influences policy in our own, post-civil rights era.

Of course it would not have been logical to have Indians framing our consitution. It was logical to pursue our own economic and political gain (despite the oppression of others). I would once again remind folks to read a little history. Slavery cooexisted happily all over the world in the age of enlightenment, defended by the most respected, reasoned minds of the time. But time marches on, doesn't it?

[EMME]

QUOTE (arisegundo @ Thursday, May 28th, 2009 @ 12:19pm) Reason supports her confirmation. No nominee is going to be 100 percent cold and rational, seeing as we're not discussing the Supreme Court of Vulcan. Her record, not her views on chickpeas and empathy, speak for her capacity.

Thanks, you saved me a much longer post. Never trust anyone who demands 100% reason anymore than you would trust someone who proposes 100% faith.

It is no longer the 18th century. 'cold calculated reason' in the context of the much-loved quote was an intellectual by-product of its time, a reaction to the medieval oppression of the church-- much as 'diversity' now influences policy in our own, post-civil rights era.

Of course it would not have been logical to have Indians framing our consitution. It was logical to pursue our own economic and political gain (despite the oppression of others). I would once again remind folks to read a little history. Slavery cooexisted happily all over the world in the age of enlightenment, defended by the most respected, reasoned minds of the time. But time marches on, doesn't it?

I concur.

[lockmat]

Thanks, you saved me a much longer post. Never trust anyone who demands 100% reason anymore than you would trust someone who proposes 100% faith.

It is no longer the 18th century. 'cold calculated reason' in the context of the much-loved quote was an intellectual by-product of its time, a reaction to the medieval oppression of the church-- much as 'diversity' now influences policy in our own, post-civil rights era.

Of course it would not have been logical to have Indians framing our consitution. It was logical to pursue our own economic and political gain (despite the oppression of others). I would once again remind folks to read a little history. Slavery cooexisted happily all over the world in the age of enlightenment, defended by the most respected, reasoned minds of the time. But time marches on, doesn't it?

You seem to be in support of reason, yet acknowledging that nobody can really be objective 100% of the time. I agree, it's human nature.

But because 'cold calculated reason' was simply a by-product of their times, does that mean it's not of ours anymore, or is 'diverstiy' simply an addition to how we should construct policy? Is reason no longer desired or is diversity more important than reason now, just because our times are different?

[TJones]

Here you go Lockmat. This should answer ANY questions about where she thinks policy SHOULD be made.

[rsb320]

What's up with retiring Justice Souter being a lifelong bachelor? Have we had a gay justice and just not known it? I'm just sayin'.

[ricco67]

One should not assume that a Justice, once appointed, would behave like they're expected to. There has been cases of Conservative Judges voting Liberally, and Liberal Judges voting conservatively.

Edit: She to "They" since it applies to both sexes.

[RedScare]

Here is an interesting article addressing the fact that when Republican appointed judges spoke of 'making law' or factoring in their immigrant or ethnic experiences, it was OK. It Is Only Outrageous When She Says It. On first blush, I am overwhelmed with the amount of experience this woman presents in her qualifications. As a career long criminal lawyer, I am also interested in the perspective a former prosecutor would bring to the Supreme Court. I haven't looked at Judge Sotomayor in depth yet, as unfortunately, I have been distracted by some of the outrageous quotes of those who seek to derail her confirmation. (Unnatural way of pronouncing her name? Really? Do you realize that you are not at the country club? Do you know that people can actually read what you are saying? Are you not the least bit embarrassed?) On a strictly personal note, after decades of Judges who believe that corporations have more rights than the citizens who created them, I am hopeful that perhaps this Judge may bring a little respect for the individual citizen to the bench, although I do not know enough of her history to even know what her judicial leanings are. Unfortunately, I only know that her family eats pigs feet and that a fat white former Speaker of the House with an unnatural name thinks she is a racist.

[Highway6]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=99420

ABA lists her as a member of La Raza.