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

[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...

 

[LowlyPion]

West Side man John Zaubler charged with threatening Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama
A Manhattan weirdo was busted for calling 911 and making a bizarre threat to "blow up" Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

John Zaubler, 48, was charged with making a terroristic threat against the Bronx-born appeals judge, President Obama's choice for the Supreme Court.

"I am going to kill Judge Sonia Sotomayor by blowing her up," John Zaubler screamed into the phone on May 30, cops say.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/05/2009-06-05_west_side_man_charged_with_threatening_judge_sonia_sotomayor_president_obama.html#ixzz0HgIVfJLH&D

Whatever could Homeland Security have been thinking that maybe there are threats from the Right?

And no sooner than I post that, but here comes this:

Daniel James Murray, 'Cape Man' who threatened to kill Obama at Utah bank, arrested at Nevada casino

Authorities arrested Daniel James Murray, the gun-loving loon from upstate New York who threatened to kill President Obama, at a Nevada casino Friday, ending a nationwide manhunt.

Federal agents were pursuing Murray, 36, after he told a Utah bank manager he was "on a mission to kill" Obama.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/06/06/2009-06-06_man_who_threatened_to_.html#ixzz0HgJXzPUo&C

 

[jreelawg]

I don't know exactly what to think of her. I watched her on Arar vs. Ashcroft, and she seamed to be vicious, but I agreed with her opinion, and the Layer she was being vicious to deserved it. She was cutting through the B.S., but the way he went about it seamed controversial. She would interrupt the layers often, and ask questions aimed at projecting her own views.

I am a little concerned than the Supreme court will be stacked with Catholic judges. Nothing against catholics, I just wonder if the Pope will be leading the supreme court, or if the judges will?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am a little concerned than the Supreme court will be stacked with Catholic judges. Nothing against catholics, I just wonder if the Pope will be leading the supreme court, or if the judges will?

I must admit that I was a little surprised when I saw that we will have six Catholics on the Court. But I think your concerns are unfounded. People had the same concerns about Kennedy.

Is there any evidence that her Catholicism has interfered with her judicial decisions? Consider for example that when she ruled in favor of the cop who was spreading racially offensive literature, she ruled against her own conscience and biases in favor the law.

 

[jreelawg]

"The decision was written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Reproductive_Law_and_Policy_v._Bush

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"The decision was written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as "the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Reproductive_Law_and_Policy_v._Bush

Why do you assume that this had anything to do with her Catholicism. One might find examples of her rulings that would seem to be consistent with Catholic teachings, but the key is whether we can find decisions that are not consistent with those teachings.

More importantly, was the rationale for her decisions consistent with the Constitution? You seem to be implying that any decision consistent with Catholic teachings was determined by the those teachings,. This assertion cannot be defended based on one a few decisions. One has to consider the entirety of her work.

 

[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.