News Sonia Sotomayor's Controversial Decisions: Examining Her Judicial Record

[swat4life]

Here's Tom Tancredo calling Sotomayor a racist. (Unfortunately he doesn't have the right motto for http://www.nclr.org/" . Her racism stems from participating in a Latino civil rights and advocacy group?)

Will check this out - thanks. You see, this is what makes me so mad! And yes I am getting a little emotional. An hour or two ago, I turned to Fox News to watch Hannity.

Honestly, sometimes when he manages to shut up, you can hear a guest that has something insightful to say. The point that got me angry is when he went on and on about "La Raza" this and "La Raza" that.

Now, the average I-work-a-9-to-5, I-ve-got-credit-card-debt and I-barely-have-time-to-sleep vs. scour-the-internet-for-more-factual-information viewer of Fox hears something like "La Raza=The Race" and says "oh this lady is a militant!".

How many of them (or even others on the board) will:

1) Google the organization
2) Look up their "About Us" Platform:

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations (CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas – assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.

Founded in 1968, NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization headquartered in Washington, DC. NCLR serves all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country and has operations in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. 3) Do further research and learn about the programs LA RAZA have to GET IMMIGRANTS OFF OF TAX PAYER MONEY AND WORKING PRODUCTIVELY?!

Programs that are well aligned with conservative values like self-sufficiency, small business ownership vs. government handouts?

Do you see why I call these people hate/fear mongers?

Why didn't they talk about this aspect of the organization on the show?

 

[drankin]

I don't think she is racist but she may be racially biased. Personally, I'm sick of race being an issue concerning anything anymore. It's nothing more than a political tool nowadays. The sixties are history. The only people talking racism anymore are from that generation or earlier. It's not a significant factor anymore.

Editing/removing my last sentence. Racism, whether against a minority or a majority is going to disappear in the next few generations.

 

[LowlyPion]

Editing/removing my last sentence. Racism, whether against a minority or a majority is going to disappear in the next few generations.

I think you are right.

Obama is the first harvest of the future.

 

[swat4life]

Personally, I'm sick of race being an issue concerning anything anymore...

Amen! Me too... (one of the best lines in this entire thread, IMHO)
I think there needs to be a way for minorities and women to become LESS sensitive about race and gender, respectively, and for non-minorities and men to become MORE sensitive about it.

This will ultimately lead to a meeting of the minds - somewhere comfortably in the middle so to speak - and the dissolution of these issues from American society...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think she is racist but she may be racially biased. Personally, I'm sick of race being an issue concerning anything anymore. It's nothing more than a political tool nowadays. The sixties are history. The only people talking racism anymore are from that generation or earlier. It's not a significant factor anymore.

My take is this: She said that her background can provide perspective that leads to better judicial decisions. This was said within the context of ruling on racial issues. It has been taken by people like Limbaugh to mean that she will favor one side over the other based on racial sympathies or bias, but in fact her record shows otherwise. The resolution is obvious: She was saying that one can produce better legal arguments if one understands the issues.

Beyond that, everyone including the Republicans admit that her background is excellent. So if race is an issue, it is only because her detractors, like Limbaugh, make it that way.

Republican Senators are completely rejecting the statements made by Limbaugh and Gingrich. Also, I had to laugh when I heard the clip with Limbaugh arguing that we should ignore her record and focus only on the one comment that he tries to define. IIRC, Amway uses the same sales/brainwashing technique.

 

[swat4life]

My take is this: She said that her background can provide perspective that leads to better judicial decisions. This was said within the context of ruling on racial issues. It has been taken by people like Limbaugh to mean that she will favor one side over the other based on racial sympathies or bias, but in fact her record shows otherwise. The resolution is obvious: She was saying that one can produce better legal arguments if one understands the issues.

Beyond that, everyone including the Republicans admit that her background is excellent. So if race is an issue, it is only because her detractors, like Limbaugh, make it that way.

Republican Senators are completely rejecting the statements made by Limbaugh and Gingrich. Also, I had to laugh when I heard the clip with Limbaugh arguing that we should ignore her record and focus only on the one comment that he tries to define. IIRC, Amway uses the same sales/brainwashing technique.

Thank you so much for pointing that out. The reason why I said "thanks" is because it's a comfort to see there are people out there that take the time to actually do an analysis.

Quite frankly, I would bet you that every single last person on this thread who made "racist" claims about this woman didn't take the time to:

1) Read the actual speech IN CONTEXT. For goodness sakes, scientists have the scientific method and METHODOLOGY because they know the importance of protecting the integrity of information. Almost ALL INFORMATION that is not analyzed in context doesn't present the FULL picture.

Example is her speech here:

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml

For instance, IMMEDIATELY AFTER the quote making waves in the news, she said the following:

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. Many are so capable. 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.

DID ANYONE ON FOX NEWS TALK ABOUT THAT?

Let me state it again:
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. Many are so capable. 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.

Does this sound like a racist or a reverse sexist? The woman was simply saying that let's face it, to give an example, if there were a court with only women on it and you were going on trial to get full custody of your kids as a single dad - and the decision about the case - rested in the hands of ALL WOMEN - isn't it not reasonable to assume that A MAN could do a better job of BALANCING OUT the perspectives on the court -ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL WITH REGARD TO QUALIFICATIONS - than yet another woman?

Isn't it fair to assume if there was someone in the room who could tell the side of you guys, perhaps that would cause ALL OTHER JUDGE'S IN THE ROOM to get a broader perspective on things??

Further more, she makes GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that she is NOT suggesting that if you happen to be not female and not a minority you CAN'T do a good job of judging on those cases. She's simply saying that let's face it, we are human and people from different backgrounds have different experiences which colors their perspective - COLD, HARD RESEARCH IN COGNITIVE & NEUROSCIENCE SUPPORTS THIS!

Why isn't Rush and Fox News quoting her statement that,
"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. Many are so capable. 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."

Also, here's one quick point I wanted to make about what I think amounts to mindless balderdash.

Judge Samuel Alito (who's of European Descent and Male) once said,
"When a case comes before me involving, let‘s say, someone who is an immigrant," said the nominee for the Supreme Court, "I can‘t help but think of my own ancestors because it wasn‘t that long ago when they were in that position. I have to say to myself and I do say to myself, you know, this could be your grandfather. This could be your grandmother."

What if The National Organization of Women and the Latino organization Raza started screaming about how much of a sexist and racist this guy was because he let his Italian heritage and the experiences of his male, grandfather affect his decision making?

I don't know about you but I'd think that was totally ridiculous, wouldn't you?

Alas, that's my sentiment here. I think if there are questions about this woman's skills and qualifications that are reasonable, by all means they need to be aired - she shouldn't get a pass because she's a woman and a latino. But the other issues are so obviously the concoctions of people who feed off fear, close-mindedness and dare I say mild bigotry...

 

[Alfi]

Republican Gingrich says he shouldn't have called Sotomayor 'racist', retracts allegation

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/03/gingrich-i-shouldnt-have-called-sotomayor-racist/"My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice.

 

[swat4life]

Republican Gingrich says he shouldn't have called Sotomayor 'racist', retracts allegation

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/03/gingrich-i-shouldnt-have-called-sotomayor-racist/


"My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court have been critical of my word choice.

Hey! Thanks for posting that! Now perhaps his critics on the left can meet him have way...

 

[LowlyPion]

Hey! Thanks for posting that! Now perhaps his critics on the left can meet him have way...

Meet him half way to where?

Who cares how Gingrich soiled his pants making reflexive polemical statements? He has no real power. He's little more than a strutting Limbaugh, peacocking on the sidelines, hawking his book, and hoping the gaze of the Republican Party will settle on him for higher office again. (It won't.)

Who cares that he finally figured out he was wrong to have flogged her comments out of context, and he was beginning to be uncomfortable playing the foolish side of a public issue ... again?

I think the next walk back by the Right will be on the Ricci Case, which was decided on the basis of settled Law. It's a far more complex issue than the Republicans are beating their chests over, and oddly in the final analysis, I think it shows her regard for the Law and precedent, as opposed to any supposed interest on her part to actively depart.

 

[swat4life]

Meet him half way to where?

Who cares how Gingrich soiled his pants making reflexive polemical statements? He has no real power. He's little more than a strutting Limbaugh, peacocking on the sidelines, hawking his book, and hoping the gaze of the Republican Party will settle on him for higher office again. (It won't.)

Who cares that he finally figured out he was wrong to have flogged her comments out of context, and he was beginning to be uncomfortable playing the foolish side of a public issue ... again?

I think the next walk back by the Right will be on the Ricci Case, which was decided on the basis of settled Law. It's a far more complex issue than the Republicans are beating their chests over, and oddly in the final analysis, I think it shows her regard for the Law and precedent, as opposed to any supposed interest on her part to actively depart.

@LowlyPion,
Hi:
Firstly, let me admit to some hypocrisy; I responded to your thread without THOROUGHLY reading the link - just glanced it. As I said in my previous post about those taking Sotomayor's comment, out of context, perhaps I just latched on to that one sentence of yours...

So, just calling a spade a spade in the interest of healthy internal identity consistency :P

At any rate, having read more thoroughly through the article, I pretty much feel the same way. When I said "meet him half way" by that I meant, putting the issue to rest and moving past the silliness and name calling.

If you've read any of my other posts, it should be seen that I have been utterly critical of how this situation has played out. And there are many left-leaning people who now have every right to be angry and what Newt and Limbaugh and the whole Fox Vigilante has said.

And make no mistake - Fox IS a propaganda machine. When you look at how they blatantly spin the news - it makes me think of Pravda (the old Soviet Publication).

At any rate, I hope that both sides can put away their emotional reactions to what has transpired - i.e. meet each other half way - and get on with the business at hand.

And let me make a final point, I think it's quite disappointing on this thread that the only ones voicing their opinions tend to have more liberal views. You would think that a place dedicated to *objective* intellectual inquiry would attract individuals willing to be open and honest.

But as always, far too often I think people on the far right take this attitude that "oh all the liberals are after us, what's the use" as opposed to talking. Furthermore, when they do make statements that seem slightly pejorative, rather than taking a step back and saying "wow, how could someone construe that as sexist, racist, etc" their attitude is "oh those liberals!".

For instance, earlier in this conversation someone made the snide remark "don't play that race hard just yet" - WTF?

If this isn't a clear example of silly race politics, what is?

People just don't understand the history of this country and that's why there is so much misunderstanding. Part of it is due to the public school system. If anyone has been to the middle east or Northern Ireland, they'll have some semblance of understanding how nasty race (and more subtly sexism) is for America.

We all just don't *wake* up one morning and - TADA- racism isn't an issue or sexism is.

WE ALL HAVE BAGGAGE!

Minorities have baggage for holding on to the traumatic history of the most recent past...

Men and whites have baggage due to guilt and increasingly fear due to the changing power structure of this country...

My big fear is that the far right (and in some case far left) power-mongers are going to use old fears, misunderstanding and insecurities to tear this nation a part.

First they went after gay marriage (as if this has anything to do with the bloody economy...and make no mistake here I am rather traditional on this topic, but I do see through the subterfuge...)


Then they went after race (plenty of examples here)

Now it's abortion...

Anything to deflect attention from the real issues, as they know that if they can stir people's emotions, that will cause them not to think logically and rationally, but RE-actionarily...

In any case, I'm often guilty of mixing my passionate sentiments about such topics with loquaciousness so I'll be off now!

Thanks again for the link...

 

[LowlyPion]

Anything to deflect attention from the real issues, as they know that if they can stir people's emotions, that will cause them not to think logically and rationally, but RE-actionarily...

My point was that Newt Gingrich is pretty much impotent. Unlike Limbaugh, he doesn't even seem to have that much of a following. He struck out as Speaker, and I think he has generally demonstrated that he's not all that deft a politician. His sniping from the sidelines really just makes him another of the magpies, and sadly for him he seems to be late to the parade anyway. (A deft politician would have read the opinions and the speeches from Sotomayor directly and concluded where the parade will have to get to and then get there ahead of it so he can look like he's leading it, rather than following the trail left by the elephants as to where it had been. You'd think a supposed Professor wouldn't be shooting from the intellectual hip like that in any event.)

As to Sotomayor, I think the Republicans seem set on a course that will do little to remove themselves from simply being seen as the Party of No. I'd say they are mostly to be ignored as obstructionists, dragging out the confirmation as long and as painfully as they can procedurally muster, blustering about filibusters, the whole way. Why meet them half way on any of this? All they are talking now is delay, delay, delay and I'm not talking Tom.

 

[seycyrus]

Sotomayor's comment was foolishly phrased and racist.

If the adjectives "latina" and "white" had been intermixed and uttered by a caucasian male, then eyebrows would have been raised, fingers would have been pointed, and accusations would have flown.

I do not believe that her comment indicates that she is a racist. I do believe that her comment illustrates the hypocritical nature of of our society on this issue.

Edit: Soto will be confirmed, btw.

 

[turbo]

Sotomayor WILL be confirmed, but only after a long dragged-out public battle. The GOP needs some issue to fire up their base and fund-raise with, and they have very few new ideas, so "Sotomayor is a LIBERAL" is about all they have to work with at present.

It is particularly ironic that Jeff Sessions is the ranking Republican on the Judicial Committee and is the public face of the GOP on the Sunday shows. The GOP wants to point out that Sotomayor has made what they claim are racially motivated statements, and who is the point-man? Sessions, who has said that the NAACP was anti-American and forced segregation down peoples' throats, and also said that he thought the KKK was a pretty good bunch until he found out some of them were pot-smokers. His own nomination to a federal bench was derailed by statements like these and his selective prosecution of black people in Alabama for "voter fraud". Here is a New Republic article from 2002:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102

 

[edward]

The so called racist comment was made in an academic situation not a legal one.

Much of the debate on the Sunday talk shows revolved around Sotomayor’s 2001 statement in a speech to a Berkeley, Calif., conference on Latinos in the judiciary. “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,” she said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23157.html

Only Limbaugh could apply the term reverse racist to that one sentence. The others took Rush's word for it and now are backing down.

 

[seycyrus]

So, you are claiming that a white academian could make the following statement.

"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 who hasn't lived that life,"

Without raising questions? I think not.

I make the claim that that is a racist statement.

Furthemore I make the claim that virtually everyone would also claim that it is a racist statement. That is, everyone except for the Africans.

And iwhy that is, is pretty evident if you think about it. I think it's obvious that a wise Asian man, with the richness of his life experience would be able to come to a better conclusion than a female African who hasn't lived that life.

 

[seycyrus]

Sotomayor WILL be confirmed, but only after a long dragged-out public battle. The GOP needs some issue to fire up their base and fund-raise with, and they have very few new ideas, so "Sotomayor is a LIBERAL" is about all they have to work with at present.

Put that straw away. Is she pro-gun, or not? That is in itself enough of an issue for many republicans and democrats.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So, you are claiming that a white academian could make the following statement.

"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 who hasn't lived that life,"

Without raising questions? I think not.

I make the claim that that is a racist statement.

Furthemore I make the claim that virtually everyone would also claim that it is a racist statement. That is, everyone except for the Africans.

And iwhy that is, is pretty evident if you think about it. I think it's obvious that a wise Asian man, with the richness of his life experience would be able to come to a better conclusion than a female African who hasn't lived that life.

You are missing the elementary point: If it was an issue about discrimination towards Asian men, then yes, her comment would apply to them as well. That was her point. If one understands the issues, then they are more likely to produce the best legal arguments. She is familiar with another aspect of racism.

What do you mean by your reference to Africans? Are you suggesting that all people of African descent are racists?

 

[seycyrus]

What do you mean by your reference to Africans? Are you suggesting that all people of African descent are racists?

I basically reiterated Sot's comment. You are now suggesting that my comment has racist overtones. Mate

 

[seycyrus]

You are missing the elementary point: If it was an issue about discrimination towards Asian men, then yes, her comment would apply to them as well. That was her point. If one understands the issues, then they are more likely to produce the best legal arguments. She is familiar with another aspect of racism.

Understands the issues ... So, white males can't understand the issues?

It's like a black thang, you wouldn't understand?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I basically reiterated Sot's comment. You are now suggesting that my comment has racist overtones. Mate

I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounded racist and I asked you to explain, so please do.

 

[seycyrus]

I have no idea what you are talking about. It sounded racist and I asked you to explain, so please do.

I repeated sot's comment and replaced "latina" with "asian" and "white" with "african".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, you didn't. You said that only blacks would not see it as racist.

Also, using "sot" for Sotomayor is hardly a clear reference.

 

[seycyrus]

No, you didn't. You said that only blacks would not see it as racist.

Excuse me? Look at the wording of the two statements. There's almost a one to one correspondence except for the words describing race/gender.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Excuse me? Look at the wording of the two statements. There's almost a one to one correspondence except for the words describing race/gender.

You are taking her words out of context and then using your own language. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[turbo]

Anybody who wants to bash Judge Sotomayor as racist is invited to read this address, from which the "racist" remarks that so inflame the right were taken.

She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The symposium was co-hosted by the La Raza Law Journal, the Berkeley La Raza Law Students Association, the Boalt Hall Center for Social Justice, and the Center for Latino Policy Research.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml

Take a quote out of context and label a SC nominee racist? What a great idea. When Jeff Sessions said that the NAACP and other civil-rights groups were "un-American" and that they had rammed integration down the throats of people, he was just a good ol' boy. Now he is the front-man for the GOP attacking Sotomayor for being a liberal racist? Pretty pathetic.

 

[seycyrus]

You are taking her words out of context and then using your own language. One has nothing to do with the other.

You are once again avoiding my argument.

The statement is racist.

Her race has nothing to do with those issues rather it is her experiences that matter. Not all latinas have been subject to the same amount of discrimintation, and not all white males have avoided all discrimination. Her statements are stereotypical and assume facts not in evidence.

She could have simply said that an individual that has experienced racism and oppression would hopefeully be able to make better judgements on those issue than a person who has not experienced such things. She did not, she brought race into it.

 

[seycyrus]

Anybody who wants to bash Judge Sotomayor as racist is invited

Again, I have not said she is a racist. I said it was a racist remark. A remark that would not be tolerated if the racial identities were switched.

 

[turbo]

Again, I have not said she is a racist. I said it was a racist remark. A remark that would not be tolerated if the racial identities were switched.

The remark was made in the context of a symposium that was dedicated to examining the representation of Hispanic people in the court system. Taken out of that context, the right characterizes it as a "racist" remark. What is so remarkable about the thought that the daughter of recent immigrants who was brought up in poverty might have a richer set of experiences to draw on than other judges who grew up in a life of privilege or at least with no overt racism directed at them?

 

[Evo]

You are once again avoiding my argument.

The statement is racist.

Her race has nothing to do with those issues rather it is her experiences that matter. Not all latinas have been subject to the same amount of discrimintation, and not all white males have avoided all discrimination. Her statements are stereotypical and assume facts not in evidence.

She could have simply said that an individual that has experienced racism and oppression would hopefeully be able to make better judgements on those issue than a person who has not experienced such things. She did not, she brought race into it.

Yes, she could have stated it more generically, but why would she need to? I have to cut her some slack for the fact that her speech was on this topic "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation."

I would say it was not a racist remark against non-latinos. That is going too far. A rich white male saying that a rich white male would be better positioned to understand and represent a rich white male, is not, IMO, a racist comment. They haven't said anything derogatory about anyone, just stated a pretty obvious fact that living the same type of lifestyle would give you more insight into the struggles (or privileges) of such lifestyle. Likewise, her statement was not a slur against other races.

 

[seycyrus]

... What is so remarkable about the thought that the daughter of recent immigrants who was brought up in poverty might have a richer set of experiences to draw on than other judges who grew up in a life of privilege or at least with no overt racism directed at them?

Again, it is the experiences that matter. Since she directly referred to the experiences in her statement, qualifying them with the racial adjective was not necessary.

If the racial identities were switched, the comment would be regarded as racist.

to illustrate my point... I think it is fair to say that most of the CEO's of the big companies are white males, while black females represent a minority. ( I am not arguing that situation is justified, merely that it is true.) Would the following statement, made by a white male (let's say he has valid experience as a CEO) in a suitable venue, be a racist remark?

""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 black female who hasn't lived that life,"

I claim that it is indeed a racist comment. It is quality and type of his experience that is critical, not his race nor his gender.

Note, I guess i am also claiming that Sotomayor made a sexist remark.

 

[seycyrus]

I would say it was not a racist remark against non-latinos. That is going too far. A rich white male saying that a rich white male would be better positioned to understand and represent a rich white male, is not, IMO, a racist comment.

I think that would be a racist comment.

I think that if a white male made such a comment he would be lamblasted.

They haven't said anything derogatory about anyone, just stated a pretty obvious fact that living the same type of lifestyle would give you more insight into the struggles (or privileges) of such lifestyle. Likewise, her statement was not a slur against other races.

Again, its the lifestyle. The experiences that matter. not race.

I do not think that racist comments have to be derogatory, do they? If I said that "Blacks are great athletes.", I'm not saying anything derogatory, but it seems to me that that is a racist remark."

 

[Evo]

I do not think that racist comments have to be derogatory, do they? If I said that "Blacks are great athletes.", I'm not saying anything derogatory, but it seems to me that that is a racist remark."

I wouldn't say it's racist, I would say that it's incorrect. Would you say the phrase "some blacks are great athletes" was a racist statement?

The fact is that pulling what she said out of context so blatantly is a really pathetic effort to discredit her.

 

[LowlyPion]

The fact is that pulling what she said out of context so blatantly is a really pathetic effort to discredit her.

What does she have ... 3700 opinions in the record over the course of her career, in addition to whatever forum or colloquiums she may have participated in?

And this is the best they can find is this Ricci case, which isn't exactly a nod to anything but adjudicating on the basis of established law, and this remark taken and stretched and regurgitated far from its original context. I have to say is this all they have? Is this why they want to drag it out all summer because they want to parse every possible paragraph of every decision to scour another interpretative out of context ad hominem attack?

For instance in Ricci the Town threw out the exams, in part because in asking the exam providers, they discovered they had not conducted a required review for bias in the construction of the exam, as it would relate specifically to the New Haven community. They were in fact obligated by law to throw it out, because in part, it would have left them liable for an actual discrimination suit, not by Ricci et al, but from those that did not fare well, minorities, that by statute they are required to offer exams that they do not discriminate against.

To rule in favor of Ricci et al looks to me then to actually be an activist, as well as recidivist position, vis a vis existing Law. It's my understanding this kind of adventurous finding is anathema to the Right Wing ideologues, (unless it would be to overturn their pet grievances in Law). Maybe they need to make up their minds about just what they are wishing for?

 

[LowlyPion]

Is she pro-gun, or not? That is in itself enough of an issue for many republicans and democrats.

This optional line of attack was mowed down today by the 7^th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today, Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, appointed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago by President Ronald Reagan, took the same hands-off as Sotomayor. They joined a 3-0 ruling that upheld weapons ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park, Illinois, and rejected challenges by gun rights advocates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJqmPBKQmpMw

She's so mainstream that Regan appointees have come to the same conclusion under Law.

It's not looking so good in "Bring Me the Head of Sonia Sotomayor Land".

 

[turbo]

BTW, I know Dick Posner quite well. He is as conservative as I am, but any movement on the part of the GOP to co-opt his values will likely be met with an indignant backlash.

 

[seycyrus]

I wouldn't say it's racist, I would say that it's incorrect. Would you say the phrase "some blacks are great athletes" was a racist statement?

No I would not. Expansion of the phrase by the inclusion of the word "some" sufficiently qualifies the phrase.

But Soto did not qualify her statement in such a way. There was no "some latinas" and "some white men". The lack of such qualifiers makes the statement stereotypical, and racist.

I am not trying to discredit her. I am addressing the double standard.

 

[LowlyPion]

I am not trying to discredit her. I am addressing the double standard.

Your willingness to take her remarks out of context looks to be at odds with your statements.

 

[seycyrus]

Your willingness to take her remarks out of context looks to be at odds with your statements.

I have stated that I do not think Sotomayor is a racist.

I know it was a forum on racial issues, that is besides the point. To continually claim that I am taking it out of context is inaccurate and disingenuous.

 

[seycyrus]

This optional line of attack was mowed down today by the 7^th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

I hardly see how the rulings made the appeals court in Chicago, can dissuade anyone from the fear that she is against federally mandated gun rights.

It has quite the opposite effect actually.

So she agrees with Chicago judges that local law trumps federal law. Is that supposed to comfort me?

 

[LowlyPion]

So she agrees with Chicago judges that local law trumps federal law. Is that supposed to comfort me?

If you want unfettered and indiscriminate access to guns, I guess that the mainstream of precedence is already against you. You've already lost that battle, regardless of whether Sotomayor sits on the Supreme Court. Since even Reagan appointees parallel her finding of fact in the same sense, I'd say your best course of action is to grin and bear it, as you are permitted to.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would have to read the decision to be sure, but I believe the gun law was an issue of States' rights. And yes, States are supposed to have rights. In fact States' rights are classically a conservative issue. I don't like the ruling either but I don't see any evidence that it was an anti-gun vote.

 

[turbo]

I believe the decision by the 7th Court of Appeals was made on the premise that if the 2nd amendment is to bind states, that interpretation must be made at the Supreme Court, not at lower levels. It's a pretty conservative stance WRT to states' rights and the need to hear cases in the appropriate venues.

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting commentary on CNN.com today about Sotomayor and Obama choosing her:

Some of us thought the election of Barack Obama as president might signal a fading away of the old identity politics...

But the president himself has made identity politics front-page news with his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee...

But in the same speech, Sotomayor wondered "whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society." And, most remarkably, she stated: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences ... our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

"Inherent physiological or cultural differences"? Can the president possibly believe that Latina women -- and indeed minority women in general -- are born to see questions of law in a different and better light than white men or even men of color? It's in their physiological and cultural makeup. A fact of nature. If indeed the president believes in such disturbing racial determinism, weep for our nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/thernstrom.identity.politics/index.html

Once upon a time, it was argued that minorities were genetically inferior to whites. Sotomayor seems to be saying that they are genetically superior to whites. It was racism to say it one way and it is racism to say it the other way too.

 

[swat4life]

Interesting commentary on CNN.com today about Sotomayor and Obama choosing her: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/04/thernstrom.identity.politics/index.html

Once upon a time, it was argued that minorities were genetically inferior to whites. Sotomayor seems to be saying that they are genetically superior to whites. It was racism to say it one way and it is racism to say it the other way to.

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. This is no different than the woman at the McCain rally a few months back who said "Obama is an Arab" despite all PROVEN EVIDENCE to the contrary. Even when McCain said "no" or when investigative news stories told the entire world that this statement wasn't based on FACTS there were people who continued to hold on to this idea they had become emotionally attached to...Likewise, when I read this, it sounds similar to the scientist who once said after completing an experiment which produced consistent empirical proof over and over again, "even if it is true I don't believe it".

Your argument has no scientific merit and I am very impatient with this sort of ignorance on a science forum of all places. So let's get to the point using the Spunge Bob Socratic method:ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE LATINOS WITH BLOND HAIR?
ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE LATINAS WITH BLUE EYES ?ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE LATINAS WITH RED HAIR & GREEN EYES ?

What therefore could this possible mean?

Definition of Latina:

For other uses, see Latino (disambiguation).The demonyms Latino and Latina (feminine), are defined in English language dictionaries as:

* "a person of Latin-American or Spanish-speaking descent."[1]
* "A Latin American."[2]
* "A person of Hispanic, especially Latin-American, descent"[2]
* "a native or inhabitant of Latin America"[3]
* "a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States"[3]
* "someone who lives in the US and who comes from or whose family comes from Latin America"[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latino

the term and usage of the term "Latino/a" and hispanic for that matter are ARTIFICIAL POLITICAL CONSTRUCTS UNIQUELY-AMERICAN in their use as ethnonym - VIRTUALLY NO WHERE ELSE IS IT USED.

THE GIST OF IT ALL:

THERE IS NO LATINO/LATINA "RACE" WHATSOEVER SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING!I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND THE SCIENTIFIC CLASSIFICATION OF THE LATINA/LATINO RACE - I'll be waiting ad finitum...

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.Given that this argument is utterly nonsensical, perhaps Sotomayor's statement "sounded" "racist" because you "heard" what you wanted to hear...

Let's just call a spade a spade.

Her statement has been waved like a Victory Day Flag in the far right media, yet they CONVENIENTLY FORGET TO MENTION THE CONTEXTUAL STATEMENT SHE MADE A FEW SENTENCES LATER:

"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. Many are so capable. 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."


Yeah, that definitely sounds like someone promoting the racial superiority of a non-existent genetic race.

With that said, I'll extricate myself from this discussion as I have a genetic inferiority - as a woman, I can't biologically process illogical, irrational, utterly nonsensical, fact-void balderdash - just plain silliness - without a violent allergic reaction...

 

[swat4life]

LATINOS WITH BLOND HAIR[/B]?



ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE LATINAS WITH BLUE EYES ?


ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE LATINAS WITH RED HAIR & GREEN EYES ?

.

A Member of the "Latino" Race:
http://www.bundesliga.de/media/images/bundesliga/clubs&spieler/01_fc_bayern/personen/q_-_z/schweini_schneider_468x345.jpg

http://hispaniconline.com/HispanicMag/2008_08/Images/Film01.jpg

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Once upon a time, it was argued that minorities were genetically inferior to whites. Sotomayor seems to be saying that they are genetically superior to whites.

Where does she seem to say that? How does the suggestion that we have differences suggest superiority?

 

[turbo]

Once upon a time, it was argued that minorities were genetically inferior to whites. Sotomayor seems to be saying that they are genetically superior to whites. It was racism to say it one way and it is racism to say it the other way too.

Sotomayor never said that Hispanics are genetically superior to whites, and if you will read this link with an open mind, you will see that she was asked to speak about her experiences on the bench in light of her gender and her ethnic background and on the future of minorities and women to ascend to the bench. She repeated over and over that one cannot judge in a vacuum, and that judging requires making choices - choices that of necessity are informed by the life-experiences of the judge. Not just Latina judges - all judges. To call her remarks racist is off-the-wall. Read the address, and see how many times she spoke in generalities about how life experience can inform the decisions made by the justices.

This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She 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." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.

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. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, 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.

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

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml

 

[turbo]

"In 2008, Sotomayor became a member of the Belizean Grove, an invitation-only women's group modeled after the Bohemian Grove.[123]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

And not sure I am comfortable with this.

"Her appointment would give the Court a record six Roman Catholic justices serving at the same time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

So the thing that confuses me, is that she is a member of a secretive elitist society. She has been a choice of both Bushes and Clintons. Ironically however, her approach is being portrayed as emotional, driven by a resentment etc. This portrayal seams to give the illusion she is the type to protect the underdogs, the minorities, that she somehow, as a Cuban American, has a unique background that gives her some kind of superior and higher perspective. All I know is that the multitude of seaming contradictions to common sense regarding her history, and her nominations bring about an acute fishy smell which is only dramatized further by the pale vile stare, and bitter look that she has about herself. Neither her activist side, nor her elitist sides appeal to me.

I also don't get the whole Hispanic thing. Don't people know most hispanics are white.

She joined a women's club. Wow! That's really scary. "driven by resentment" is something you'll have to back up if you want to promote. You should also know that her parents were from Puerto Rico and not Cuba. Finally, you do your argument no justice by citing "acute fishy smell which is only dramatized further by the pale vile stare, and bitter look that she has about herself". You're welcome to your own opinions, but they seem to be driven by ignorance of the facts, acceptance of right-wing talking-points, and a willingness to make ad-hom attacks on a woman whom presidents from both parties seemed to consider well-qualified to put on the federal bench and promote.

BTW, the Senate confirmed her both times. Were they wrong?

 

[jreelawg]

Those last few comments were not posted by me. I had left PF logged on, and my brother has apparently been posting while I am at work. For the record, I don't agree with his views.

 

[turbo]

Those last few comments were not posted by me. I had left PF logged on, and my brother has apparently been posting while I am at work. For the record, I don't agree with his views.

OK, then what are YOUR views on the nominee and her record? The lady seems well-qualified and her views seem well-balanced to me. I guess I could be way wrong...