Sonia Sotomayor's Controversial Decisions: Examining Her Judicial Record

[jreelawg]

Your right, I'm not sure. But, if she is a Catholic, and she isn't faking it, then she is obligated by god to follow the pope. If she were to support something which is deemed a sin by the catholic church, she would be, by her belief, going against god.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

She is required by her faith to live her own life according the teachings of the church. That does not imply that she is required to impose those beliefs on anyone else. She most certainly found the distrubution of racially offensive literature personally offensive, but she not rule according to her personal biases. She ruled in favor of the law.

Her faith also includes the following: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's.”

If she takes an oath swearing to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, then she is bound by her faith to do so.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact, it might even be fair to ask if the reason we see that 6 of 9 Supreme Court Justices are [will be] Catholic, is that because of their Catholicism, they are more objective. Does faith raise the legal bar such that personal bias is less significant than it might be in a person who does not believe that they answer to a higher power?

If a non-believer tells a lie or makes a biased legal decision, he or she answers only to him or herself. If a Catholic knowingly rules according to personal bias, they believe that they will have to answer for this before the highest court. They might even believe that they would go to hell for such a transgression.

 

[jreelawg]

That is a fair point. But, there are issues like for example the Bush administrations abstinence only policy. There are times when science and faith conflict, and we have seen faith win out at the expense of results. Then there is the question of the catholic churches war against science, demonizing of Darwin, pushing religion into the classroom etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While I am the first to complain about Bush, I don't think the comparison is appropriate. SC Judges are bound to make strict interpretations of Constitutional law. One of the President's job is to set policy based on the platform on which he ran. That platform often includes his personal beliefs and biases. The two jobs are very different.

So far I think Sotomayor might make an excellent SC Justice. But I have no idea if I would want her to hold political office. One thing has very little to do with the other.

 

[jreelawg]

She has already stated that she thinks a persons ethnicity and life experiences play a role in how they will judge, this would seam to have to include religion. She has stated that her experiences as a hispanic women, she thinks, make her a better person for the job than a white male. This seams like a slippery slope. What does she really think in her heart? Does she think being catholic makes her a better judge than a jew?

 

[LowlyPion]

I wonder will Republicans attack her now because she is a people person?

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's brother Juan sticks up for his big sis

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/10/2009-06-10_supreme_court_nominee_sonia_sotomayors_brother_juan_sticks_up_for_his_big_sis.html

Meanwhile, Republicans are busy grousing about rushing through to hearings on her nomination, when her time to confirmation, even if confirmed on the first day of the scheduled hearing will apparently already be longer than average for past nominees.

The Party of No doesn't seem to skip a beat.

 

[Gokul43201]

If a non-believer tells a lie[, molests children] or makes a biased legal decision, he or she answers only to him or herself.

Fixed it for you!

If a Catholic knowingly rules according to personal bias, they believe that they will have to answer for this before the highest court.

This is also exactly true of a non-believer for whom "him or herself" is the highest court.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fixed it for you!

If you say so.

This is also exactly true of a non-believer for whom "him or herself" is the highest court.

It is not the same. To a non-believer, responsibility is purely an abstraction - an academic concept. To a believer, there is a greater reality that by definition they believe exists. One has to first grapple with the reality of a belief in hell to understand the difference. If you never have, then there is no common frame of reference.

In either case, there is no reason to think that she will be an agent for the Pope because it would violate her beliefs. He religion demands that she be the best SC Justice that she can be. She is [will be] bound by an oath that she believes to be real and not just words or an abstraction, that she will defend the Constitution.

 

[turbo]

I heard the same clap-trap from the right when JFK was running for president - younger people may not be aware of it, but those of us who were Roman Catholic were pretty ticked off to hear that Kennedy wasn't fit to be president because his religion made him subservient to the Pope. It seems that it's OK to be a conservative Catholic, but if you might be a liberal (we really don't know her yet) being Catholic is a sign that you'll be dangerous to Constitutional law.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is not the same. To a non-believer, responsibility is purely an abstraction - an academic concept. To a believer, there is a greater reality that by definition they believe exists. One has to first grapple with the reality of a belief in hell to understand the difference. If you never have, then there is no common frame of reference.

I find the phrase "reality of a belief in hell" almost oxymoronic (more comical actually, if you throw in the right lighting, soundtrack, and the red dude with a pitchfork), but I'd rather not make this a debate about Religion. Without any kind of statistical studies, I discount assertions that one of the two groups (believers vs non-believers) makes for a more moral, less lying, more unbiased ... person. On a related (though still off-topic) note, I was just listening to NPR and someone mentioned a not uncommon saying that goes something like this: "Character - it's doing the right thing when no one is watching."

In either case, there is no reason to think that she will be an agent for the Pope because it would violate her beliefs. He religion demands that she be the best SC Justice that she can be. She is [will be] bound by an oath that she believes to be real and not just words or an abstraction, that she will defend the Constitution.

(If this was directed at me) I hold no opinion on this matter, and have no reason to support an "agent of the Pope" assertion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find the phrase "reality of a belief in hell" almost oxymoronic (more comical actually, if you throw in the right lighting, soundtrack, and the red dude with a pitchfork), but I'd rather not make this a debate about Religion.

Yet you choose to insult religious beliefs [actually, those who have these beliefs]. In fact you often make a point of doing so.

Without any kind of statistical studies,

Okay

I discount assertions that one of the two groups (believers vs non-believers) makes for a more moral, less lying, more unbiased ... person.

Clearly then this is a matter of faith for you.

On a related (though still off-topic) note, I was just listening to NPR and someone mentioned a not uncommon saying that goes something like this: "Character - it's doing the right thing when no one is watching."

What is the "right thing". It depends entirely on one's beliefs. She may believe that abortion is wrong but would be forced to rule according to the law, even if it conflicts with her beliefs, because she took an oath. IF that oath was considered to be an abstraction - just words when compared to the life of a child - then one might not feel compelled to rule according to the law.

(If this was directed at me) I hold no opinion on this matter, and have no reason to support an "agent of the Pope" assertion.

An agent of the pope assertion is what motivated my statements. I was explaining why a Catholic can be expected to rule according to the law, but apparently you find that to be offensive.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yet you choose to insult religious beliefs. In fact you often make a point of doing so.

No, I was merely rebutting what I perceived as an insult to non-believers.

Clearly then this is a matter of faith for you.

My being skeptical of the assertions you made without recourse to any supporting evidence leads you to believe that this is a matter of faith for me?

What is the "right thing". It depends entirely on one's beliefs. She may believe that abortion is wrong but would be forced to rule according to the law, even if it conflicts with her beliefs, because she took an oath.

You missed the point. If you are a believer, there's never "no one watching". In fact, you specifically asserted greater morality based on having to deal with the consequences of being watched.

An agent of the pope assertion is what motivated my statements. I was explaining why a Catholic can be expected to rule according to the law, but apparently you find that to be offensive.

No, what I find offensive is your assertion that a Catholic is more likely to be ethical and unbiased than a non-believer. You started the religion war with that assertion, not I.

Thanks, I'm done with this argument. You can have the last word, if you want it.

 

[BobG]

In either case, there is no reason to think that she will be an agent for the Pope because it would violate her beliefs. He religion demands that she be the best SC Justice that she can be. She is [will be] bound by an oath that she believes to be real and not just words or an abstraction, that she will defend the Constitution.

The Catholic church hasn't made any comments that I know of specific to judges, but the http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics.html Supporting an immoral act, such as voting for abortion or against an anti-abortion bill, isn't something a Catholic politician can do and still participate fully in the Catholic church. They have to decide which is more important.

That means no more when it comes to Sotomayor than it does when it comes to Joe Biden (pro-abortion Catholic), John Kerry (pro-abortion Catholic), Nancy Pelosi (pro-abortion Catholic), etc.

But I don't think you can use the Catholic church as a reason why she'd be less likely to let her religious views affect her rulings. (It is a reason why her personal views shouldn't be allowed to affect her rulings, but the views of the Catholic church are bigger and more important than her personal views.)

I think it's almost irrelevant; or at least less relevant than her judicial record.

 

[BobG]

If a non-believer tells a lie[, molests children] or makes a biased legal decision, he or she answers only to him or herself.

Fixed it for you!

Yet you choose to insult religious beliefs [actually, those who have these beliefs]. In fact you often make a point of doing so.

No, I was merely rebutting what I perceived as an insult to non-believers.

It was a rather strange rebuttal.

 

[Gokul43201]

It was a rather strange rebuttal.

Jeez! That was only the first part of my response, and it was made with a tongue2 smiley at the end of it! Besides, there wasn't anything logically flawed with that addition, was there? Or is molesting children not considered immoral behavior?

 

[russ_watters]

This statement clearly reflects the tragic, irrational emotional investment in an idea despite all evidence - logical, scientific, even Newt Gengrich-rejected - to the contrary that some individuals have.


Since there is no "Latino/Latina" race scientifically speaking, EXPLAIN TO THE READERS HOW ANYONE WITH A SHRED OF LOGICAL THINKING CAPABILITY WOULD SUGGEST THIS WOMAN IS ALLUDING TO THE RACIAL SUPERIORITY OF A NON-EXISTENT RACE?

I've really been holding back on this for a while, but it's a crying shame that it is 2009 and there are people this ill-informed.

Yeah, that definitely sounds like someone promoting the racial superiority of a non-existent genetic race. [/B][/U]

Here's the problem with your entire post: she's the one asserting it, not me! She labeled herself "a wise Latina woman". And Obama picked her largely because she's a female Hispanic. He said so.

*I* would very much like to see this be a country blind to race (and I fully understand that the concept of race itself is artificial - especially considering our President's chosen/labeled race) and gender, but it hasn't happened yet - it is being perpetuated (in this case) by the President and his USSC justice choice.

You're arguing with the wrong person!

 

[russ_watters]

Where does she seem to say that?

I didn't quote the already commonly quoted statement from the same speech, where she says:

"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..."

I guess I figured everyone was already quite familiar with that quote. The quotes in my post are an amplification of that statement: saying that it isn't just her experience, it is her genes.

People (in this thread too) have said we need to view that quote in context: I provided context that actually makes the quote worse.

How does the suggestion that we have differences suggest superiority?

Suggesting differences doesn't suggest superiority, suggesting that differences suggest superiority suggests superiority.

Be honest with yourselves, people. If you replace "hispanic" with "white" and "woman" with "man" in these quotes and then try to judge how the media would react, there is no way the media would react any way but to drop a hammer on the person saying such a thing. Could you imagine McCain referring to himself as a "wise white man" in a speech where he his arguing for why he should be President?

 

[russ_watters]

Sotomayor never said that Hispanics are genetically superior to whites...

She said "inherrent physiological...differences" (which can be nothing other than a genetic difference) and she said "better".

[sarcasm]Yes, her remarks are just dripping with racism, aren't they? [/sarcasm]

I guess as long as only 5% is racist, that's ok? Does a white male get the same benefit of the doubt when letting a racial stereotype slip?

In particular, turbo-1, I have a big problem with this part, which we discussed even before her name came up, when Obama said something similar:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, 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 and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

The judge she paraphrased says that judges have the responsibility to be unbiased in their judging. They have to at least try. And I agree. A judge should be deciding matters of Constitutionality based on the constitution and the intent of the framers. That's their purpose and responsibility. She's throwing that out. She says she agrees, but she then specifically disagrees with it (yeah, she sets it off with "I wonder...", but that's a weasel that leads into the more specific quotes I posted above).

She is telling us, in plain English, that she's not even going to try to faithfully interpret the Constitution.

She is telling us, in plain English, that she will decide matters of law based partly on her racial bias.

It floors me that in this day an age, this is not just considered acceptable, but desirable!

 

[jreelawg]

I don't understand the whole thing, because I haven't been paying any attention to the media, or watching FOX news, but anything I say negative about her, mindless drones come back with something about me being some kind of republican who watches fox news.

Personally, I think that the power brokers within the republican party purposely gave Obama the election by forcing McCain to pick Palin. I think the Bush family and the Clintons are closer than Rush and Newt, and I think that Obama is basically part of the Clinton Gang, which is also part of the Bush gang. I also think that the Bushes and the Clintons, and Obama alike chose Soto, for some reason, not because she is hispanic. And that many (the ones in the loop) republicans are speaking out against Soto as a publicity stunt.

I also find it funny the way people can twist things around to fit their clients agenda. Liberals, democrats, Obama supporters, the last people you would expect, defending racists and racist remarks when their cause is on the line. I'm talking Wright, the anti semetic, anti white priest who thinks Obama is being controlled by Jews. Now Sotomyer. Come on people call it for what it is.

Ok, African Americans have a history that makes racism more acceptable for them, I'll give you that, but what of Hispanics? Hispanics were the pioneers and dominators of slave trade and colonialization. No slack, she is plain old racist that's all there is to it.

And I don't buy the catholics have higher moral obligations bit either. First of all, look at all the priests who molest children. All they have to do is say a bunch of Hail Mary's, and they still get into heaven. All the gangs and drug lords who commit ruthless acts, and then go to confession. They do however hold a certain superstition about mans purpose on earth, and the pope fills em in. Calling for catholics to do this, do that, the hurricanes were a punishment for your sins, don't vote for this, don't vote for that. The Pope is like an outside political figure of whom catholics hold an oath to.

 

[Al68]

I just heard a report that since her recent injury several Republicans have softened their opposition to her nomination. Apparently, since she broke her ankle, she is now leaning to the right.

 

[Alfi]

I just heard a report that since her recent injury several Republicans have softened their opposition to her nomination. Apparently, since she broke her ankle, she is now leaning to the right.

hehehe
broke the wrong ankle?

 

[wildman]

That means no more when it comes to Sotomayor than it does when it comes to Joe Biden (pro-abortion Catholic), John Kerry (pro-abortion Catholic), Nancy Pelosi (pro-abortion Catholic), etc.

Actually, Biden is pro-life. He has made a point of that and voted for the late term abortion ban:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/biden_makes_no_.html

You have to be careful when making assumptions about pols because they are in one party or another.

 

[BobG]

Actually, Biden is pro-life. He has made a point of that and voted for the late term abortion ban:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/biden_makes_no_.html

You have to be careful when making assumptions about pols because they are in one party or another.

Actually, if you look at his positions overall, he's slightly pro-choice. (rated 36% by the pro-choice organization NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion; rated 0% by pro-life organization NRLC, indicating a pro-life voting record.)

My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think I have a right to impose my few on the rest of society. I've thought a lot about it, and my position probably doesn't please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely. I will not vote to overturn the Court's decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman's right to choose abortion. But I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion."

I'll concede that he's probably best described as middle of the road, vs being pro-choice.

 

[turbo]

Barry Goldwater said much the same. He said that abortion was not a conservative issue, and that the choice was up to the pregnant woman, not the Pope or some right-wing religious do-gooders.

 

[a4mula]

Personally I could care less what beliefs she has. I don't care about her religion, I don't care about her racial views, I don't care about her sex, skin color, or political alignment.

She's a proud Latina Woman. Good for her. Whatever. Who cares. Left, Right, Black, White, Woman, Man. I'm so sick of the labels that we apply to ourselves and one another. Will she uphold our constitution? Period. That's all that matters.

This country might not carry the same stench if people stopped marking their territory at every available opportunity.

 

[Al68]

Barry Goldwater said much the same. He said that abortion was not a conservative issue, and that the choice was up to the pregnant woman, not the Pope or some right-wing religious do-gooders.

Goldwater was more of a libertarian than a conservative.

As you might guess, I would love to see a Goldwater-like President. His response to being labeled as an extremist by Democrats was: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

We need politicians like that now.

 

[Gokul43201]

Actually, if you look at his positions overall, he's slightly pro-choice. (rated 36% by the pro-choice organization NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion; rated 0% by pro-life organization NRLC, indicating a pro-life voting record.)

Why would the NRLC give Biden a 0% rating if he voted for the late term abortion ban and against federal funding? Has he supported an infinite number of pro-choice positions that his pro-life positions make up a set of zero measure (in the space of his voting record)? Or does the NRLC use a more complex algorithm for their rating that produces this number?

(That question should be directed at the NRLC rather than at BobG, but since they're not here on PF...)

 

[russ_watters]

Personally I could care less what beliefs she has. I don't care about her religion, I don't care about her racial views, I don't care about her sex, skin color, or political alignment.

She's a proud Latina Woman. Good for her. Whatever. Who cares. Left, Right, Black, White, Woman, Man. I'm so sick of the labels that we apply to ourselves and one another. Will she uphold our constitution? Period. That's all that matters.

Agreed. So that's why I have a problem with her: she's been pretty clear that upholding the Constitution is not her primary concern.

 

[turbo]

Agreed. So that's why I have a problem with her: she's been pretty clear that upholding the Constitution is not her primary concern.

I have not heard anything like that from her, Russ, so perhaps we should wait until there are some hearings. Pre-judging her based on statements made as the keynote speaker to a conference that was INTENDED to examine the disparity in the representation of females and minorities on the highest courts (federal district, appeals, etc) is about the only thing her critics have to whack her with. Obama was a professor of constitutional law, and it is highly unlikely IMO that he would nominate a SC justice that didn't have the respect and confidence of constitutional scholars. Why not dial back on the political rhetoric on this issue and let her be questioned (toughly, I expect, by the GOP and Dem blue-dogs) and see what her temperament is? The GOP sound-machine is flailing.

BTW, as Ivan and I have pointed out too many times to count, we were both Republicans until the neo-cons hijacked what used to be a conservative party, and now we are both Independents. The closest thing we have have to '60s conservatives these days are the Libertarians, and they can't generate the lobbyist money that the neo-cons can, and so will never be a viable repulsive force against the Dems absent a popular revolution.

 

[LowlyPion]

Agreed. So that's why I have a problem with her: she's been pretty clear that upholding the Constitution is not her primary concern.

I missed that statement. Perhaps you can illuminate?

I can appreciate that you may feel that she will not uphold the Constitution the way you want to interpret it, and have it upheld, but I haven't noted any statement of any particular clarity in her opinions, or otherwise, with regards to her saying she has no regard for, nor feels bound by, the Constitution. That would be a rather novel position for a sitting Appeals Court Judge to hold. Impeachable even.

 

[Al68]

BTW, as Ivan and I have pointed out too many times to count, we were both Republicans until the neo-cons hijacked what used to be a conservative party, and now we are both Independents. The closest thing we have have to '60s conservatives these days are the Libertarians, and they can't generate the lobbyist money that the neo-cons can, and so will never be a viable repulsive force against the Dems absent a popular revolution.

I get thew feeling that you and Ivan would very much oppose a Libertarian candidate. Obviously when it comes to economic issues, Libertarians make most Republicans look like big government, regulation loving, high taxing, Left wing extremists in comparison.

 

[signerror]

It seems Sotamayor is currently violating an anti-discrimination law, by holding a federal judge office while belonging to a group that discriminates its members:

Sotomayor Resigns From All-Women’s Club

WASHINGTON (AP) — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, resigned Friday from an elite women’s club after Republicans questioned her membership.

In a letter to Senators Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, Judge Sotomayor said she was convinced that the club, the Belizean Grove, did not practice “invidious discrimination” and that her membership in it did not violate judicial ethics.

...

Federal judges are bound by a code that says they should not join any group that discriminates by race, sex, religion or nationality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/us/politics/20grove.html

 

[wildman]

Actually, if you look at his positions overall, he's slightly pro-choice. (rated 36% by the pro-choice organization NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion; rated 0% by pro-life organization NRLC, indicating a pro-life voting record.) I'll concede that he's probably best described as middle of the road, vs being pro-choice.

0% by NRLC?? They don't have an ounce of political sense. Biden went against his leadership and voted FOR the late term abortion ban. I think that NARAL has it right. Mixed voting record but leaning pro-life. No wonder almost no Democrats support NRLC. You go out on a limb for them and they cut it off...

 

[BobG]

Why would the NRLC give Biden a 0% rating if he voted for the late term abortion ban and against federal funding? Has he supported an infinite number of pro-choice positions that his pro-life positions make up a set of zero measure (in the space of his voting record)? Or does the NRLC use a more complex algorithm for their rating that produces this number?

(That question should be directed at the NRLC rather than at BobG, but since they're not here on PF...)

Ah, I should have looked at the years. Evidently, neither tracks the votes by career, but by year (or every 2 years for NRLC). If the years match, the most recent records were 100% for NARAL and 0% for NRLC. For the year Biden was 36% for NARAL, he was 15% by NRCL, since NRCL looked at the next year's vote as well. Looking at how each scores legislators, neither means a whole lot. Scores can go radically up and down since they're only looking at a few votes at a time.