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

[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.