Sonia Sotomayor

[TheNiche]

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.

Very apt observations, there. It's really a shame that so much press is generated as a result of peripheral matters rather than on qualifications. Going back to my rant about diversity and reason...it's entirely possible that she's really a very reasonable woman, capable of making sound and logical judgments even if she is prone to some pretty astounding gaffs (like I am, from time to time). But I wouldn't know anything about that, because the important things aren't getting any press. I could probably research her on my own and pick out enough to say whether she was qualified, but instead--I end up gleaning superficial information from an internet forum and debating issues that probably are peripheral to the character of this person.

I feel dirty now just from having read this thread.

[RedScare]

I feel dirty now just from having read this thread.

My feelings exactly.

[EMME]

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

ABA lists her as a member of La Raza.

Just an FYI - That is NOT LaRaza Unidas.

When, oh when, did grass roots activists group that do not participate in trying to illegally overthrow a government, but rather try to make change through fair elections and legislation become outlaws in this country? ACORN, LaRaza, NAACP, NOW, MoveOn.org, GOP (HA!), etc.

Was it the same time that blue collar workers became undesirable as neighbors? Was it when a fair living wage for our workers became too much of a burden on our corporations?

[Gooch]

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.

Indeed. Justice Souter, who she is to replace if confirmed, often sided with the liberal side of the court, and was appointed by President Bush. A proper judge will not have a predetermined bent. However... any nominee will be labeled as having a bent -real or not- as part of our political process of bickering. No nominee can escape being labeled as too (liberal/conservative) by the opposite side that appointed him or her.

It is the thought process that makes a good justice. Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsberg are known to be close personal friends and often consult at length on court opinions. Although they are known as too "conservative" and too "liberal" by the respective opposition. Justice Thomas (I'm paraphrasing) cites Ginsberg as one of his most respected peers in his book. Both have turned out to be excellent justices. It's a bit of a crap shoot, uncomfortable as that may be.

Never trust anyone who demands 100% reason anymore than you would trust someone who proposes 100% faith.

Nice!

[crunchtastic]

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?

You are right. Philosophical and intellectual trends change over time, and luckily when it comes to things like constitutional law and policymaking, we tend to retain the good stuff, like reason, and add new stuff, like equal rights.

My point was more that any authority which bases itself purely on reason can potentially be as false and cruel as one which bases itself on say, witchcraft, because it can be used to reject other aspects of humanity. Reason rejects weakness, whereas morality embraces weakness. Western philosophy seems to me so exclusionary. Maybe it's time I do some studying of eastern thinking, because the whole yin/yang thing just makes so much more sense to me.

[crunchtastic]

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'.

Souter is retiring to put on his cardigan and do a little antiquing up in Maine, is my guess.

[RedScare]

Indeed. Justice Souter, who she is to replace if confirmed, often sided with the liberal side of the court, and was appointed by President Bush. A proper judge will not have a predetermined bent. However... any nominee will be labeled as having a bent -real or not- as part of our political process of bickering. No nominee can escape being labeled as too (liberal/conservative) by the opposite side that appointed him or her.

It is the thought process that makes a good justice. Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsberg are known to be close personal friends and often consult at length on court opinions. Although they are known as too "conservative" and too "liberal" by the respective opposition. Justice Thomas (I'm paraphrasing) cites Ginsberg as one of his most respected peers in his book. Both have turned out to be excellent justices. It's a bit of a crap shoot, uncomfortable as that may be.

While not disagreeing with the substance of your post, I must disagree that Justice Thomas has been an excellent justice. In fact, he is considered one of the worst.

[Highway6]

Just an FYI - That is NOT LaRaza Unidas.

When, oh when, did grass roots activists group that do not participate in trying to illegally overthrow a government, but rather try to make change through fair elections and legislation become outlaws in this country? ACORN, LaRaza, NAACP, NOW, MoveOn.org, GOP (HA!), etc.

Was it the same time that blue collar workers became undesirable as neighbors? Was it when a fair living wage for our workers became too much of a burden on our corporations?

The NCLR "promotes driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police." The "good" grass roots activists groups don't get a free pass when they support behavior that is currently illegal and support measures that handcuff those that try to hold those illegal accountable.

Except for the added goal of a "bronze continent for bronze people" - taking control of the American SW, the NCLR's goals and MEChA 's goals are one and the same, and I haven't found anywhere where NCLR denounces MEChA's views.

You mention ACORN. Yeah, their voting registration illegal activities couldn't in anyways be compared to helping to overthrow a government could they ?

We do not know Sotomayor's views. Obviously with her "latino woman" comment, questions geared towards racism will be brought up by the Senate and hopefully she will have plenty of opportunity to make clear she does not agree with the views of MEChA.

[Gooch]

While not disagreeing with the substance of your post, I must disagree that Justice Thomas has been an excellent justice. In fact, he is considered one of the worst.

By some. Ginsberg is as villified as Thomas in Conservative circles. I'd wager that most haters have never read an opinion or a transcript of oral arguments where each shine in differing ways.

(trying to keep on topic...) I cannot name one justice univerally approved of by liberal and conservative talking heads. Past or present. No reason believe Sotomayer would be the first.

[lockmat]

(trying to keep on topic...) I cannot name one justice univerally approved of by liberal and conservative talking heads. Past or present. No reason believe Sotomayer would be the first.

Nice statement, thread closed.

No really. I think it would be helpful to know the standards which congress will approve or disapprove her. Are there some sort of specific requirments one must meet or is just based off the questions and judgment of the congress?

If we knew those standards I think it'd be more beneficial to our conversation and our own little vetting process.

[RedScare]

By some. Ginsberg is as villified as Thomas in Conservative circles. I'd wager that most haters have never read an opinion or a transcript of oral arguments where each shine in differing ways.

(trying to keep on topic...) I cannot name one justice univerally approved of by liberal and conservative talking heads. Past or present. No reason believe Sotomayer would be the first.

I'm not speaking of the opinions of political groups. In fact, the garbage coming out about Judge Sotomayor is the same political garbage that comes out of the mouths of political garbage carriers. In legal circles, Thomas is universally panned. As a point of comparison, Justice Roberts receives high marks, even if many liberals disagree with his decisions. Oh, and I've read an opinion or two.

[TJones]

Very apt observations, there. It's really a shame that so much press is generated as a result of peripheral matters rather than on qualifications.

If that were the case and the press would go by qualifications, then in a perfect world, Obama would have never been in a position to appoint Sotomayor, now would he ?

[TJones]

Souter is retiring to put on his cardigan and do a little antiquing up in Maine, is my guess.

Souter has been wanting out for awhile, but made it very clear that he was going to hang on until Bush was out of the White House.

[Porchman]

I think it would be helpful to know the standards which congress will approve or disapprove her.

[TJones]

Porchman, he meant that as an oxymoron my brotha .

[lockmat]

Porchman, he meant that as an oxymoron my brotha .

Whether they live by them or not is irrelevant (what can we do?). I'd like for us to at least consider the standards for our discussion.

Anyway...

CNN poses this quesiton...

(CNN) -- Sonia Sotomayor could be the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court. And as we learn more about her, the more questions centered on her ethnic background abound. Was she chosen partly because of her Hispanic origins? Does she consider race in her rulings? Are we focusing too much on her ethnicity and not enough on her judicial history?

I say, forget about WHY she was chosen. The nomination has been made. Whether she was elected b/c of her ethnicity or not is irrelevant now. She was nominated, so let's look at her record to see if she's qualified. It doesn't matter what she looks like as long as she's qualified.

And to their second question, yes of course we should consider that, but we should consider that with all nominees. We know that she does think diversity is important for the judiciary. That concerns me. Myself, I'm half mexican. People have always thought I was just by looking at me. I went to a predominantly white, small college and all said I stood out like a sore thumb. However, I have never thought of myself as white or mexican. When I think of myself, I just think of myself as as person. I never think about my ethnicity. I can't be the only one like that. So...b/c she thinks ethnicity is important, it worries me that she might think she has to especially be empathetic to non-whites, when really she should be ruling regardless of color or income status.

[sevfiv]

I have also been reading some ridiculous statements about how having diabetes should be looked at as a disqualifier for her.

Thank goodness there are some informed counter arguments being put forth.

[CDeb]

I have also been reading some ridiculous statements about how having diabetes should be looked at as a disqualifier for her.

I agree they are rediculous. Just as health concerns were rediculous in some other recent political brouhaha....

[west20th]

If that were the case and the press would go by qualifications, then in a perfect world, Obama would have never been in a position to appoint Sotomayor, now would he ?

I didn't know the press elected the president. So how are those sour grapes tastin'?

[westguy76]

I didn't know the press elected the president. So how are those sour grapes tastin'?

So you don't think the press has a profound impact on shaping people's opinions of candidates?

Or on the viability of a war?

Let's not revise reality.

[west20th]

So you don't think the press has a profound impact on shaping people's opinions of candidates?

Or on the viability of a war?

Let's not revise reality.

Yes they do and there was plenty of media that was anti-Obama. Ultimately people make there own choices. Blaming the media instead of realizing the GOP ran an ineffective candidate and messed up royally with the previous administration is definitely sour grapes. And as far as the viability of a war that is the commander in chief's obligation to sell to the country. Good Lord doesn't the party of "personal responsibility" take responsibility for anything?

Back to Sotomayor. Obama won the election and this is his choice. Unless something in her background shows her to be unqualified then she should get confirmed. Bellyaching about the evil media isn't going to change that.

[EMME]

When I was younger and up into my late 30s, I was a very pretty young lady. I usually got excellent service wherever I went, people (male and female of all sizes and shapes) were always very kind and attentive with me. When acquaintances that were overweight, or who would be deemed unattractive for any reason, would complain about feeling invisible at service counters, I would always think it was their fault. Maybe they didn't smile, or maybe they were rude. Well, now that I am almost 50 and the blush of the rose is gone, I know what they mean. It was absolutely invisible to me, until I experienced it. Now that I have put on that weight, and have some wrinkles, I find I am invisible.

My purpose for saying that is this: No matter how sympathetic a person may be, there are things that they will never understand or even see as existing unless they experience it themselves. Or they may not have any understanding of the depth of discomfort caused by such actions until they experience it themselves.

That is what I hear in Ms. Sotomayor's statement.

[KinkaidAlum]

Excellent post, Emme.

Even taken out of context, I didn't find her initial comment (in this thread) objectionable. Of course she is going to experience things differently than a Yale fratboy with yacht club memberships. In fact, I'd argue that her new perspective might be a huge plus.

[RedScare]

When I was younger and up into my late 30s, I was a very pretty young lady.

This thread is worthless without pics.

On a (much) more serious note, the comments by some of the GOP mouthpieces regarding Judge Sotomayor are breathtaking in their crudeness and scope. Comparisons to David Duke, cracks about PMS, references to the Spanish language as "illegal alien"...are we talking about a nominee to the Supreme Court, or qualities that are not welcome in the GOP? Are intellectuals banned from the GOP? I have yet to see an intelligent argument to her qualifications from the talking heads on the right. Apparently, this the level of discourse that they believe their listeners enjoy. It's so bad that John Cornyn and Orin Hatch are trying to tone them down. JOHN CORNYN!

I am utterly dismayed at what a full one-half of our 2 party system has become. I left the GOP in 1993 due to its increasingly religious slant. Now, I wish that it acted a bit more Christian.

[RedScare]

Excellent post, Emme.

Even taken out of context, I didn't find her initial comment (in this thread) objectionable. Of course she is going to experience things differently than a Yale fratboy with yacht club memberships. In fact, I'd argue that her new perspective might be a huge plus.

Actually, the insistence by conservative white males that this comment is so egregious suggests that, in spite of their claims to the contrary, these white males DO believe that white male judges rule differently, and want to keep it that way.

[EMME]

Actually, the insistence by conservative white males that this comment is so egregious suggests that, in spite of their claims to the contrary, these white males DO believe that white male judges rule differently, and want to keep it that way.

Projection

[RedScare]

While there is no shortage of opinions on Judge Sotomayor from non-lawyers who have never even met her available on AM radio and cable news television, here is an account from an attorney who has actually argued a case in front of her.

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

WARNING: Judge Sotomayor does not reach the decision expected of a flaming liberal Hispanic woman nominated by a Black socialist. May cause extreme sadness and mild depression in those addicted to ethnic and gender stereotypes. Please read with caution. Do not operate heavy machinery or listen to talk radio while reading this account.

[TJones]

Back to Sotomayor. Obama won the election and this is his choice. Unless something in her background shows her to be unqualified then she should get confirmed. Bellyaching about the evil media isn't going to change that.

Soooo, if Obama had picked a whiteman, and said, "he is smarter than a Latina woman because of the life he has led, and that he believes POLICY should be made from the bench." You would be OK with that......right ?

[ihop]

Soooo, if Obama had picked a whiteman, and said, "he is smarter than a Latina woman because of the life he has led, and that he believes POLICY should be made from the bench." You would be OK with that......right ?

Do you realize that in changing just a word or two from each of her statements, you've totally altered the meanings from what her original statements were? It may be what you think she believes, but it's not what she said.

[TheNiche]

Do you realize that in changing just a word or two from each of her statements, you've totally altered the meanings from what her original statements were? It may be what you think she believes, but it's not what she said.

But he put it in quotes! That's authoritative. How can you argue with something in quotes?

...I shouldn't have opened this thread again. Now I need to go take a shower.