An interesting post by Eric Posner at The Volokh Conspiracy: Judge Sonia Sotomayor: What the Data Show. The conclusion of this analysis seems to be that Sotomayor is a stronger candidate for the Supreme Court in many ways than Samuel Alito was.
1 |
MandyManners Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:18am |
Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?
| 2 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:28am |
She has the judicial experience, for sure.
But I strongly suspect she will impose her personal views, rather than rule on strictly Constitutional grounds.
She'll get approved, so we shall see.
| 3 |
Baier Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:35am |
Since when do you need experience to hold a power political office these days?
| 5 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 11:31:56am |
re: #1 MandyManners
Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?
Not likely if she did, they'd have list out there.
| 7 |
jaunte Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:18am |
re: #1 MandyManners
I've been trying to find the source of that data for the last half hour; so far no luck.
| 8 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 11:32:56am |
re: #1 MandyManners
Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?
I've been searching and have found absolutely no evidence to back up this outrageous claim.
| 9 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:12am |
Wood ranked eighth; Alito sixteenth. Sotomayor would be in the bottom half. However, I would not put too much weight on this conclusion. Choi and Gulati intended their composite ranking as an experiment to provoke discussion on how best to evaluate and rank judges.
| 10 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 26, 2009 11:33:41am |
re: #1 MandyManners
Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?
The longer the lack of evidence lasts about that assertion the more it shows up as a very bad political talking point.
| 11 |
MandyManners Tue, May 26, 2009 11:34:26am |
re: #9 loppyd
loppy, do you have a link for the 80 per cent reversal rate?
| 13 |
Baier Tue, May 26, 2009 11:34:50am |
re: #10 FurryOldGuyJeans
The longer the lack of evidence lasts about that assertion the more it shows up as a very bad political talking point.
Which means Eric Cantor will be espousing it on every news show that will have him.
| 14 |
MAV Tue, May 26, 2009 11:35:01am |
What could possible go wrong?
Unpaid taxes?
Racist comments/opinions?
Why she's the perfect candidate...
Spits
| 15 |
brookly red Tue, May 26, 2009 11:35:40am |
re: #1 MandyManners
Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?
I think it was 4 out of 5 when she wrote the opinion...
| 16 |
Ward Cleaver Tue, May 26, 2009 11:36:45am |
re: #10 FurryOldGuyJeans
The longer the lack of evidence lasts about that assertion the more it shows up as a very bad political talking point.
Oh, but it'll show up in numerous emailed chain letters. It'll take on a life of its own.
| 17 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:37:38am |
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated Tuesday by President Barack Obama to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, is no stranger to the sports world.
Sotomayor helped end the 1995 Major League Baseball strike with a ruling against Major League Baseball owners in their collective bargaining dispute with players, and also was part of a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel that overturned a lower court ruling that temporarily allowed Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett to enter the NFL draft despite the fact he hadn't been out of high school for three years.
[Link: sports.espn.go.com...]
For what it is worth?
| 19 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:26am |
Shouldn't we be more concerned about the fact that her name is an anagram of Orations Say Moo?
| 20 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:47am |
She's definitely got the resume for the job. No argument there. And she should get an up or down vote.
But she's got some views that don't jibe with the Bill of Rights. Which is why I think she was picked in addition to her 'historic' attributes.
She'll be confirmed, no doubt about it. The votes are there even if every Republican voted no, which they won't. But her views on the second amendment and affirmative action should be made very well known to the people, regardless.
| 21 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 11:38:53am |
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
| 22 |
MandyManners Tue, May 26, 2009 11:39:08am |
I've not been able to find a link, either.
Right now I'm outta' smokes so I'm gonna' zip to the store.
| 23 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 11:39:12am |
Seekrit Soshalizm must stay seekrit. Shhhhh..
| 24 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:39:57am |
re: #18 Iron Fist
Or even better, a few percocets?
:-)
2 problems
1) drug testing
2) narcotics make me want to throw up
| 25 |
Ward Cleaver Tue, May 26, 2009 11:40:06am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
There's another line for the emailed chain letters. But hey, you left out the misspellings and grammatical errors.
| 26 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:40:15am |
re: #8 Charles
I've been searching and have found absolutely no evidence to back up this outrageous claim.
She has only received 11 out of 44 votes in her favor when her opinions have reached the SCOTUS.
I don't know how many cases where she authored the opinion have been granted certiorari by the SCOTUS, but four have been reversed - at least one unanimously. Three of the four were reversed because she erred in applying the law.
| 27 |
MAV Tue, May 26, 2009 11:40:23am |
| 28 |
Dahveed Tue, May 26, 2009 11:40:33am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
I'm quite certain Hannity will have that as his lead story tonite.
| 29 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:40:40am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
Peta is not gonna like that?
| 30 |
FurryOldGuyJeans Tue, May 26, 2009 11:40:40am |
re: #16 Ward Cleaver
Oh, but it'll show up in numerous emailed chain letters. It'll take on a life of its own.
Did I discount that the conspiracy devotees will have a go at this? Nope. Pushing this unproven idiocy will have as much credibility as do the troofers and nirthers.
Now what would be a good nickname for the 80% conspiracists?
| 32 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:22am |
re: #17 Nevergiveup
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated Tuesday by President Barack Obama to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, is no stranger to the sports world.
Sotomayor helped end the 1995 Major League Baseball strike with a ruling against Major League Baseball owners in their collective bargaining dispute with players, and also was part of a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals panel that overturned a lower court ruling that temporarily allowed Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett to enter the NFL draft despite the fact he hadn't been out of high school for three years.
[Link: sports.espn.go.com...]
For what it is worth?
Oh my goodness, she's a sports liberal, the worst kind of liberal. Before you know it we will have woman in football, gays on the PGA tour and midgets playing professional basketball.
//////////////////////////
| 33 |
subsailor68 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:25am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
Yeah, but I heard she only eats 80% of 'em.
//
| 34 |
badger1970 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:36am |
re: #30 FurryOldGuyJeans
Spaghetti throwers? (hope that something sticks)
| 35 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:37am |
Dow +210
This is a sign of George Soros' pleasure with our puppet government.
| 36 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:39am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
Linky?
/
| 37 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:42am |
| 38 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 11:41:51am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
See my note above.
Orations [i.e. prayers to Satan]
Say [to Satan]
Moo [animal sacrifice... to Satan]
| 39 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 11:42:14am |
re: #33 subsailor68
Yeah, but I heard she only eats 80% of 'em.
//
80% of babies or 80% of the baby?
| 40 |
Diamond Bullet Tue, May 26, 2009 11:42:36am |
Should've gone with Posner (Richard A.). Posner has his own warts, but he's also one of the most prolific, respected, and cited jurists in America. He's one of the few judges I've witnessed whose criticism can cause the Supreme Court to change course, rather than vice-versa. 'course, he's also an old white guy so he's automatically a non-starter. Ladies and Gentlemen, Obama's America!
| 41 |
Ward Cleaver Tue, May 26, 2009 11:42:44am |
re: #29 Nevergiveup
Peta is not gonna like that?
As long as they're human babies, PeTA is okay with it.
/only half sarc
| 42 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:42:51am |
re: #32 Walter L. Newton
Oh my goodness, she's a sports liberal, the worst kind of liberal. Before you know it we will have woman in football, gays on the PGA tour and midgets playing professional basketball.
//////////////////////////
Sorry Walter, we already had a midget in baseball:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 43 |
SanFranciscoZionist Tue, May 26, 2009 11:42:53am |
re: #29 Nevergiveup
Peta is not gonna like that?
PETA will be OK as long as they're human. Sea kittens, on the other hand...
| 44 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:05am |
re: #35 Killgore Trout
Dow +210
This is a sign of George Soros' pleasure with our puppet government.
No, it's more like Obama's economic policies are paying off, paying off everyone but those who are really hurting and need some help.
| 45 |
Ward Cleaver Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:12am |
| 46 |
ConservatismNow! Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:16am |
| 47 |
subsailor68 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:18am |
re: #39 jcm
80% of babies or 80% of the baby?
Oh thanks jcm! I still haven't figured out the 20% chance of rain thingee.
;-)
| 48 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:43:22am |
re: #11 MandyManners
loppy, do you have a link for the 80 per cent reversal rate?
See my 26.
I think that is where the 80% number is coming from.
I need to find out how many cases where she authored the opinion were granted cert and of those how many were reversed.
| 49 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:44:15am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
Yes, there may be far-right nutballs spreading crazy rumors, but even a level-headed "moderate" observer such as myself can reasonably suspect that, based on her previous rulings and statements, she will lean toward being a "judicial activist" and not be a strict Constitutionalist. That's not a wild supposition.
I'm almost certain she'll get approved (no reason to reject her, really, as she is legitimately qualified), so we'll find out if my suspicions are right over the upcoming years (and decades).
| 50 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 11:44:59am |
re: #26 loppyd
She has only received 11 out of 44 votes in her favor when her opinions have reached the SCOTUS.
I don't know how many cases where she authored the opinion have been granted certiorari by the SCOTUS, but four have been reversed - at least one unanimously. Three of the four were reversed because she erred in applying the law.
Not so outrageous then. Her peers don't put much stock in her reasoning.
| 51 |
MrSilverDragon Tue, May 26, 2009 11:45:05am |
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
-Homer Simpson
| 52 |
Rednek Tue, May 26, 2009 11:45:25am |
| 53 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:46:01am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
No, but her stand on gun control and her little "Latina" remark is enough to make me think twice about her qualifications, her other record not withstanding.
And those are not rumors.
| 54 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:46:22am |
She produced slightly more opinions than Alito - in the Second Circuit, which is far busier than the 3d, in which Alito performed his duties. The margin between Sotomayor and Alito on number of opinions is and of itself a minor issue altogether.
The Second Circuit gets far more press than other circuits since it's a New York based Court, so the other metrics used tend to skew in that direction. Still, she ranked dead last on the invocations metric, while Alito was mentioned 5 times (ranking 28th overall - Sotomayor ranked tied for last with no mentions). As far as being independent, Sotomayor tends to correlate with other partisan members on the 2d Circuit, which means that she'd likely to be a reliable vote.
The one issue that I've yet to see resolved is the metric claiming that she's been overruled 80% of the time (as mentioned and quoted repeatedly on the last Sotomayor thread). I call BS on that until someone proffers any credible evidence to the contrary.
| 55 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 11:46:34am |
Stornger than Alito? I don't see the data as saying she is necessarily a stronger candidate than Alito.
Quality (1). Choi and Gulati measure quality by counting citations to a judge’s top twenty opinions. This approach avoids penalizing productive judges whose marginal opinion addresses narrower issues (as a citation-per-opinion measure would), while also avoiding excessive credit to productive judges who garner high citations by writing a lot. Judge Wood’s top twenty cases over three years received 327 outside-circuit citations, putting her 26th. The range is 96 to 734, with a mean of 277.9. Judge Sotomayor’s statistic is 231, which would place her 59th. (Alito was 70th.)
By this estimate, Sotomayor and Alito are very near each other, and Wood is the one who excels.
Quality (2). Judge Sotomayor’s opinions from 1999-2001 were cited 289 times in law reviews and other legal periodicals through May 31, 2004. Judge Wood’s opinions from 1998-2000 were cited 513 times through May 31, 2003 (16th). (Alito’s were cited 240 times (73rd).) Sotomayor would have ranked 65th.
Again, Sotomayor and Alio are very close and Wood is a much better candidate using this criteria.
Quality (3). Choi and Gulati also check what they call “invocations”—the frequency with which opinions written by other judges refer to the judge in question by name. They argue that invocations are most likely when the judge in question either has a good reputation or has written a particularly helpful opinion. Invocations range from 0 to 175 (excluding two outliers, the highest is 23), with a mean of 32. Judge Sotomayor was invoked 0 times (tied for last). Judge Wood was invoked 10 times (9th), and Judge Alito was invoked 5 times (28th).
Here, Alito is a much stronger candidate than Sotomayor, but not as good as Wood.
Independence. Judges should decide cases in a non-partisan way; “independence” refers to the probability that a judge will dissent from a majority opinion written by a co-partisan or will write a majority opinion from which a co-partisan dissents. Choi and Gulati use a complicated variable that attempts to measure this tendency, and I simplify here. A score of 0 means that a judge is just as likely to disagree as agree with a co-partisan (or opposite-partisan). Negative scores mean that a judge is more likely to agree with co-partisans. Judge Sotomayor’s score is -0.153 (read the paper if you want to know how this score is calculated), which would have placed her 55th. Judge Wood has a score of -0.018, placing her eighth in terms of independence. (Alito was 10th.)
Again, here Alito seems to be a more independent judge than Sotomayor, on-par with Wood's independence. A good question would be how willing would Ms. Sotomayor be to go along with the rest of the court on an opinion?
Personally, I think Obama would've been better to go with Judge Wood over Judge Sotomayor based on the criteria presented on Volokh.
| 56 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:46:49am |
re: #49 zombie
... but even a level-headed "moderate" observer such as myself can reasonably suspect that, based on her previous rulings and statements, she will lean toward being a "judicial activist" and not be a strict Constitutionalist....
Nah, you must be kidding, really, you think that?
////////////
| 57 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 11:46:53am |
re: #48 loppyd
See my 26.
I think that is where the 80% number is coming from.I need to find out how many cases where she authored the opinion were granted cert and of those how many were reversed.
That's what Rush used for a source. It includes this paragraph:
In Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, the Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, affirmed a ruling by Sotomayor on a question of federal jurisdiction. (On a quick read, I can’t readily discern whether the majority’s grounds are the same as Sotomayor’s, but will assume for purposes of my cumulative vote tally that they are.)
Pretty off-the-cuff for something that's being spread as Gospel across the innernut.
| 58 |
Buck Tue, May 26, 2009 11:46:53am |
re: #48 loppyd
See my 26.
I think that is where the 80% number is coming from.I need to find out how many cases where she authored the opinion were granted cert and of those how many were reversed.
AND what the average is of that specific stat for other judges....
| 59 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 11:47:21am |
Instapundit links approvingly to an article calling this nomination as "tokenism". I just don't get this obsession with race from both sides.
| 60 |
Dave the..... Tue, May 26, 2009 11:47:21am |
She could be worse. I think many of us are very uncomfortable with her because:
A) She was picked primarily because due to being a female of Puerto Rican ancestry.
B) She's associated with Empathy for liberal victim groups
| 62 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 11:48:20am |
No matter what her record we can be assured that the Congress will politicize the heck out of her nomination process.
Odds of a relevant question being asked about jurisprudence and constitutional law? Verrrrrrry Loooooooong.
| 63 |
jaunte Tue, May 26, 2009 11:48:28am |
A 'conservative' Sotomayor opinion (from spinoff link above)
In United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2008), Judge Sotomayor, joined by Judge Livingston, rejected a defendant’s plea to overturn his conviction based on a Fourth Amendment violation. The defendant was arrested for possession of child pornography after FBI agents searched his home with a warrant. The warrant application stated that an agent had purchased a subscription to a website advertising available child porn and that in light of a subsequent forensic examination of the site “it appeared” that the defendant “either gained access or attempted to gain access” to the website as well. In addition, the affidavit revealed that the defendant had previously been arrested in 1987 on charges of sexually abusing a seven-year-old girl and pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of “acting in a manner injurious to a child less than sixteen” for which he received probation. Writing for the majority, Judge Sotomayor held that this failed to establish probable cause for the search warrant. However, she held that the constitutional violation did not warrant exclusion of the evidence because the officers acted in good faith reliance on the wrongly-issued warrant. She further rejected the defendant’s reliance on an exception to the exception: she concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the issuing magistrate was knowingly or recklessly mislead. And she rejected the claim that the warrant application was so facially lacking in indicia of probable cause as to make reliance upon it unreasonable. Judge Livingston concurred in part and in the judgment, but would have ruled that the police had probable cause.
| 64 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 11:48:48am |
re: #53 Walter L. Newton
No, but her stand on gun control and her little "Latina" remark is enough to make me think twice about her qualifications,
Strictly speaking, those points go to her ideology, not her "qualifications".
I don't like either quote (although I would like to see the "wise Latina" quote with a little more context before passing judgment), by the way. But so far I'm getting the impression that we could have gotten someone a lot worse.
| 65 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:49:02am |
re: #54 lawhawk
You put things in perspective for a legal Novice very well. I know I could write things about Dentistry and make almost any point I wanted to and only another Dentist would be able to yell bullshit at me.
| 68 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 11:49:56am |
re: #57 wrenchwench
Pretty off-the-cuff for something that's being spread as Gospel across the innernut.
What does Wikipedia say? /
| 69 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 11:50:14am |
re: #38 Occasional Reader
See my note above.
Orations [i.e. prayers to Satan]
Say [to Satan]
Moo [animal sacrifice... to Satan]
No frickin wonder I didn't get it
| 70 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 11:50:18am |
re: #49 zombie
....based on her previous rulings and statements, she will lean toward being a "judicial activist" and not be a strict Constitutionalist. That's not a wild supposition.
She'll probably get that label simply for being on the left. "Judicial activism" seems to mostly be a label from the right regarding decisions they don't like.
| 72 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:50:34am |
re: #58 Buck
AND what the average is of that specific stat for other judges....
Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.
| 73 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 11:50:46am |
re: #59 Killgore Trout
Instapundit links approvingly to an article calling this nomination as "tokenism". I just don't get this obsession with race from both sides.
Look... it's not exactly a secret that gender and ethnicity were factors in the nomination decision. Even the most liberal, pro-Obama of media sources have been chatting away about that factor for weeks.
| 75 |
subsailor68 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:51:08am |
re: #68 DaddyG
What does Wikipedia say? /
LOL! I was suspicious when they spelled her name Sodacracker.
;-)
| 76 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 11:51:29am |
re: #64 Occasional Reader
Strictly speaking, those points go to her ideology, not her "qualifications".
I don't like either quote (although I would like to see the "wise Latina" quote with a little more context before passing judgment), by the way. But so far I'm getting the impression that we could have gotten someone a lot worse.
| 77 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:51:43am |
| 78 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 11:51:54am |
re: #59 Killgore Trout
Her name was proffered from the outset because of restoring another woman to the Court; Bush chose best available for the seat (O'Connor retiring, Rehnquist dying, Miers fireballing in infamy, Roberts and then Alito chosen instead).
Best available should be the choice, not who's replacing who because of gender, race, etc.
If anything the Democrats keep pushing the idea of hitting specific demographics, but both parties do it.
| 79 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 11:52:03am |
re: #60 Dave the.....
A) She was picked primarily because due to being a female of Puerto Rican ancestry.
She's qualified, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the accusation.
| 80 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:52:22am |
re: #64 Occasional Reader
Strictly speaking, those points go to her ideology, not her "qualifications".
I don't like either quote (although I would like to see the "wise Latina" quote with a little more context before passing judgment), by the way. But so far I'm getting the impression that we could have gotten someone a lot worse.
Much of this is moot unless something really blows up in her face.
| 81 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:52:30am |
re: #57 wrenchwench
Pretty off-the-cuff for something that's being spread as Gospel across the innernut.
I heard this before Rush came on today.
How are facts off the cuff? 11 of 44 in favor of reversal is not a stellar record.
| 82 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 11:52:44am |
| 83 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:53:04am |
re: #81 loppyd
I heard this before Rush came on today.
How are facts off the cuff? 11 of 44 in favor of reversal is not a stellar record.
OOps 11 of 44 for upholding.
| 84 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 11:53:07am |
re: #63 jaunte
Who knows what Judge Sotomayor could be like on the SCOTUS. Everyone thought Judge Souter was a conservative until he got there. For all we know, Sotomayor could turn out to be Obama's Souter.
| 85 |
Bloodnok Tue, May 26, 2009 11:53:07am |
| 86 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:53:22am |
| 88 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 11:54:15am |
Are there any Republicans with the stones to ask her opinion on the constitutionality of nationalizing a private industry and shifting ownership to the government and unions; or the limits of the interstate commerce clause when it comes to states' 10th amendment rights?
Those are the questions I want answered by any supreme court justice nominee.
| 89 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:54:38am |
re: #87 taxfreekiller
The white fire men case, where the only passing grades were white guys so the fire dept. canceled the promotion. This lady part of that deal.
That could be why race comes up, she plays the card herself and puts it in writing that race is a trump card.
She was rebuked by a Latino judge for her crap decision on that case.
| 90 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 11:54:54am |
re: #80 Walter L. Newton
Much of this is moot unless something really blows up in her face.
I'm with OR, it could have been worse. She'll get confirmed by the repubs for exactly that reason.
| 91 |
Rednek Tue, May 26, 2009 11:54:58am |
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging in terms that could provoke sharp questioning in a confirmation hearing.
This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”
The thing that bugs me about her, is that a candiate for the Supreme Court would trail off a sentence with a half formed thought, and a summary "...you know".
How would that sound at the end of an empathetic rulling?
| 92 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, May 26, 2009 11:55:03am |
Sotomayor's nomination is doubtless causing confusion among those fully expecting POTUS Obama's 1st SC nomination to be along the lines of Bernardine Dohrn or Angela Davis. She seems closer to an Anita Hill with credentials.
| 93 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 11:55:10am |
re: #79 Killgore Trout
She's qualified, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the accusation.
What you've got to look at is, what is in the justice's heart? What's their broader vision of what America should be? Justice Roberts said he saw himself just as an umpire, but the issues that come before the Court are not sport, they're life and death. And we need somebody who's got the heart–the empathy–to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old–and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges. Alright?
Obama to Planned Parenthood.
Obama picked an empathic justice, with demographic considerations. Demographic considerations are a part of politics, on all sides.
| 95 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 11:55:38am |
re: #87 taxfreekiller
Maybe there was a real legal reason for her decision.
| 96 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 11:56:30am |
re: #82 Charles
Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.
However one spins it, invoking race when discussing people's qualifications or wisdom is offensive. Even if she was just speaking about discrimiation cases, and the full context is considered, it's still insulting and faintly racist to imply that a racial minority will have a superior opinion on the matter.
Reverse the racial nouns in her sentence to get the full flavor of how bigoted it appears.
| 97 |
calvin coolidge Tue, May 26, 2009 11:56:50am |
In her bio, Sonia said Perry Mason was one of her idols. I hope she realizes he was an actor and not a real life attorney. She also idolizes Barack. Again, I hope she realizes he is an attorney and not a real life President.
| 99 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 11:56:56am |
re: #86 loppyd
How?
Her point was that in cases related to racial discrimination, a "wise Latina" might make better decisions than a "white male" who had not gone through the same life experiences. I suggest you read the speech in its entirety.
You may disagree with the idea that a judge's life experiences may affect their rulings, but it's not a simple case of "reverse racism," as it's being portrayed. She has an arguable point to make.
| 100 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 11:57:06am |
re: #95 Killgore Trout
Maybe there was a real legal reason for her decision.
The SCOTUS is widely believed to be poised to reverse her on it. AGAIN!
| 101 |
Buck Tue, May 26, 2009 11:57:34am |
re: #72 loppyd
Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.
BUT that makes the stat valid.... where she is on the scale...
| 103 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 11:57:53am |
re: #81 loppyd
I heard this before Rush came on today.
How are facts off the cuff? 11 of 44 in favor of reversal is not a stellar record.
The compilation of facts was off the cuff, and the compiler said
On a quick read, I can’t readily discern
I call that off-the-cuff. I'm sure there's a better expression for it.
| 104 |
jaunte Tue, May 26, 2009 11:58:14am |
re: #95 Killgore Trout
here are some comments about that case:
...in the Supreme Court briefing, all the parties agreed that if New Haven declined to implement the results of its promotion test because it did not want to promote the best performers because they were white or Hispanic, then that was clearly illegal. New Haven says that this isn’t what happened, that it was simply trying to avoid a violation of Title VII’s disparate impact provision. And much of the debate in the Supreme Court is whether New Haven’s conduct was legal assuming that motivation.
But at the same time, the plaintiffs in Ricci have argued that there was substantial evidence in the record that avoiding disparate impact was not New Haven’s actual motivation. Instead, they insist that New Haven was acting out of “racial politics” and good old-fashioned intentional racial discrimination.[Link: www.scotusblog.com...]
| 106 |
badger1970 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:58:15am |
She's not going to move any more right or left when she gets confirmed. In other words, she's not going to do the Souter. She'll stay at her ideology but doubt she'll gain any more importance.
| 107 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 11:58:24am |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
re: #78 lawhawk
Her name was proffered from the outset because of restoring another woman to the Court; Bush chose best available for the seat (O'Connor retiring, Rehnquist dying, Miers fireballing in infamy, Roberts and then Alito chosen instead).
Best available should be the choice, not who's replacing who because of gender, race, etc.
If anything the Democrats keep pushing the idea of hitting specific demographics, but both parties do it.
You are absolutely correct, both parties do it - Bush the elder with Thomas replacing Marshall being the last GOP example. I would guess that Reagan's choice of O'connor was gender based, unless one believes that she was the most qualified at the time she was picked, which is a tough argument to make.
| 109 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 11:58:47am |
re: #82 Charles
Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.
I still think the "wise Latina" is outa line.
| 110 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 11:58:55am |
Rush speaks for the Party of Failure.....
| 111 |
Red Pencil Tue, May 26, 2009 11:58:57am |
re: #1 MandyManners
Does she really have an 80 per cent reversal rate?
I don't think so, but I DO have a clue where that bogus number might have coe from. On a prior thread someone mentioned that of the 5 of her cases that went to the Supremes, 44 justice weigh ins (9 x 5 - 1?), and only 11 could be charitably construed to agree with her. That's 75% right there.
A number of justices who might disagree with a judge over the course of five cases is not of course a "reversal rate". I'm just suggesting a possible source for that bit of misinformation.
| 112 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 11:59:40am |
re: #90 turn
I'm with OR, it could have been worse. She'll get confirmed by the repubs for exactly that reason.
I will go along with that, it always could be worst, but her gun control ideas and the advantage she thinks she hold by being a Latina still bothers me.
| 113 |
Buck Tue, May 26, 2009 11:59:43am |
re: #72 loppyd
Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.
You need to put the stat in context...
For example I am 65% water.... if you don't know what other people are, you might think that is high....
| 114 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 12:00:32pm |
re: #96 zombie
However one spins it, invoking race when discussing people's qualifications or wisdom is offensive. Even if she was just speaking about discrimiation cases, and the full context is considered, it's still insulting and faintly racist to imply that a racial minority will have a superior opinion on the matter.
Reverse the racial nouns in her sentence to get the full flavor of how bigoted it appears.
I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
| 115 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:00:34pm |
re: #99 Charles
Her point was that in cases related to racial discrimination, a "wise Latina" might make better decisions than a "white male" who had not gone through the same life experiences. I suggest you read the speech in its entirety.
You may disagree with the idea that a judge's life experiences may affect their rulings, but it's not a simple case of "reverse racism," as it's being portrayed. She has an arguable point to make.
Her statement:
"..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."
Better? I can live with different, but better? No way.
She should not be applying anything other than the law to her decisions. So yes, I disagree - vehemently.
| 116 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:01:13pm |
re: #82 Charles
Yes, the "wise Latina" quote is also being taken way out of context.
Having read a little more of the context now, I can't say I'm too happy about the quote. Note this at the beginning of the same paragraph:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
What?!
Imagine a white male nominee chatting away about how his "physiological differences" will allow him to reach "better conclusions" than those of a female Latina judge.
| 117 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 12:02:19pm |
It was JOE BIDEN who turned Supreme Court nominations into political trench warfare.
Robert Bork should be on the bench.
| 118 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:02:36pm |
I tend to use a "swap races in the statement" test on racial statements. Ie: if you made it a white/anglo statement, would it be judged "racist."
Would it be wrong for a white judge to suggest that since the case involves discrimination against whites, that a wise white man might give a more sensitive ruling?
IMO, it would be offensive, and perhaps more importantly, it would be instantly disqualifying if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak (for good reason).
| 119 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 12:02:39pm |
| 120 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:02:50pm |
re: #88 DaddyG
Are there any Republicans with the stones to ask her opinion on the constitutionality of nationalizing a private industry and shifting ownership to the government and unions; or the limits of the interstate commerce clause when it comes to states' 10th amendment rights?
Those are the questions I want answered by any supreme court justice nominee.
Very few difficult questions are truthfully answered by any SC nominee when before congress. If asked a question, the answer to which will be troublesome, the nominee will often state that he hadn't thought of the question before and thus has no answer.
| 121 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 12:03:21pm |
re: #104 jaunte
It's the Ricci case? From the Stormfront group Tea Party Americans Coalition
(google cache)
The have a thread up titled "Using Buchanan's 'Party of Ricci' phrase"
I think I see why this is pissing off so many people.
| 122 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 12:03:22pm |
re: #72 loppyd
Other judges are not being considered to be on the bench at the highest court in the land.
Metrics, however, are completely meaningless in isolation, stripped of context. For example, if she's been reversed 80% of the time (still waiting for real proof of this) but her colleagues are reversed 82% of the time - or 97% of the time, or 10% of the time - then her record needs to be compared against that of her peers. The absolute number itself means nothing.
Given how hard it seems to be for anyone to confirm this otherwise simple statement, I'm guessing we're going to see that it is based on some bizarre form of measurement that, when applied to any other justices, would yield similar results. But I'm more than willing to see how the actual claim was arrived at.
| 123 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:03:25pm |
re: #99 Charles
Her point was that in cases related to racial discrimination, a "wise Latina" might make better decisions than a "white male" who had not gone through the same life experiences. I suggest you read the speech in its entirety.
You may disagree with the idea that a judge's life experiences may affect their rulings, but it's not a simple case of "reverse racism," as it's being portrayed. She has an arguable point to make.
I don't disagree that a judge's "life experiences" might affect their rulingss -- but that's not what she said. She threw race in there, incorporating the notion that a racial minority will inherently have a superior or wiser opinion on discrimination cases than a "white male."
If she had just mentioned life experiences, it wouldn't be controversial. She's implying that race is a factor in wisdom or thinking skill. That's where she's flirting with bigotry.
| 124 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:03:25pm |
re: #113 Buck
You need to put the stat in context...
For example I am 65% water.... if you don't know what other people are, you might think that is high....
11 of 44 at the SCOTUS does not a brilliant legal mind make. Sorry.
| 125 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:04:13pm |
Charles, to be clear, even if some here would not disagree with the reversed statement scenario (though I would), the press, etc, would make it a witch-hunt, IMO.
| 126 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:04:19pm |
re: #123 zombie
I don't disagree that a judge's "life experiences" might affect their rulingss -- but that's not what she said. She threw race in there, incorporating the notion that a racial minority will inherently have a superior or wiser opinion on discrimination cases than a "white male."
If she had just mentioned life experiences, it wouldn't be controversial. She's implying that race is a factor in wisdom or thinking skill. That's where she's flirting with bigotry.
And she feels a Latina would come to a better conclusion than a white male. Imagine if the reverse statement were made?
| 127 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 12:04:27pm |
re: #114 Charles
I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
Well, I would not agree with that, any more than I could agree that her statement was a wise one to make,.
| 128 |
Dave the..... Tue, May 26, 2009 12:04:40pm |
Kilgore, do you think she would have been picked if she was an English-American male?
Kind of like the college Chancellor who was picked due to an unwritten rule that it had to be a female....she may be qualified, but you always have your doubts when gender is a precondition (think Univ-Minnesota-Duluth for those of you from the area).
| 129 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:04:48pm |
re: #114 Charles
I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
Well, what are you talking about. Define your market. Are you talking about people here, on LGF, who tend to be moderate and fair about most issues, or Joe the Plumber?
I can't speak for anyone else (even though I do slip into that sometimes, and get my fingers whacked), but that "reversed" remark would offend me.
| 131 |
Eowyn2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:04:54pm |
re: #59 Killgore Trout
Instapundit links approvingly to an article calling this nomination as "tokenism". I just don't get this obsession with race from both sides.
I'd be less sceptical about it if she weren't handicapped (diabetes-which is being made much of,) female, and hispanic.
She (as we all) should be judged on our ability. I would like to see more of her work as a judge and lawyer.
I definately do NOT want another three ring circus.
| 133 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:05:09pm |
re: #121 Killgore Trout
It's the Ricci case? From the Stormfront group Tea Party Americans Coalition
(google cache)
The have a thread up titled "Using Buchanan's 'Party of Ricci' phrase"I think I see why this is pissing off so many people.
Ah yes, all roads lead to Stormfront in your world.
| 134 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:05:10pm |
| 135 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:05:10pm |
re: #123 zombie
I don't disagree that a judge's "life experiences" might affect their rulingss -- but that's not what she said. She threw race in there, incorporating the notion that a racial minority will inherently have a superior or wiser opinion on discrimination cases than a "white male."
If she had just mentioned life experiences, it wouldn't be controversial. She's implying that race is a factor in wisdom or thinking skill. That's where she's flirting with bigotry.
Not to mention the "physiological differences" bit.
| 136 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, May 26, 2009 12:05:16pm |
re: #99 Charles
And would her point be valid if you substitute the word "Asian" for "white male"?
How about "Black" for "white male"?
At what point does it come apart?
| 137 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:05:23pm |
re: #114 Charles
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
Um... not I.
The judge is supposed to be interpreting the law, not being racially/sexually "wise" (i.e., taking one side out of ethnic or gender "empathy").
I don't think this exactly means that Sotomayor is a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!, but it was at best an ill-advised choice of words.
| 138 |
Buck Tue, May 26, 2009 12:05:50pm |
re: #124 loppyd
11 of 44 at the SCOTUS does not a brilliant legal mind make. Sorry.
unless the average is lower... I don't know.
| 139 |
Vicious Babushka Tue, May 26, 2009 12:05:58pm |
re: #97 calvin coolidge
In her bio, Sonia said Perry Mason was one of her idols. I hope she realizes he was
an actora fictional character and not a real life attorney.
Perry Mason was played by Raymond Burr.
| 140 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 12:06:14pm |
re: #60 Dave the.....
She could be worse. I think many of us are very uncomfortable with her because:
A) She was picked primarily because due to being a female of Puerto Rican ancestry.
B) She's associated with Empathy for liberal victim groups
To be frank, I think just about everyone is uncomfortable simply because she was nominated by Obama. I also think that if Obama were to nominate Robert Bork, we would suddenly be hearing criticisms and suspicions raised over Bork's cherry-picked statements as well. Guilt by association.
| 141 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:07:19pm |
| 142 |
Rednek Tue, May 26, 2009 12:07:21pm |
re: #116 Occasional Reader
What?!
Imagine a white male nominee chatting away about how his "physiological differences" will allow him to reach "better conclusions" than those of a female Latina judge.
Just ask Lawrence Summers what the reaction would be.
| 143 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:07:32pm |
re: #140 SixDegrees
Might be something to that. Still, I think it needs a test - he should nominate Bork instead, so we can see what happens.
A man can dream, can't he?
| 144 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 12:07:34pm |
re: #124 loppyd
How are you getting 11 of 44? Are you counting the actual breakdown of cases reversed - 7-2 in one case for example as being 7 reversals? That's not how it works. If one of her cases was reversed, it's one case reversed. I noted the Tasani case that dealt with copyright infringement, and it affirmed the ruling by the Court of Appeals, which overruled Sotomayor's trial court ruling. That case had a 7-2 majority, with Ginsberg delivering the majority opinion.
It's just one case out of many heard by the Supreme Court, which were overturned. I'm still trying to dig up the actual reversal rate.
| 145 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:08:29pm |
re: #137 Occasional Reader
Um... not I.
The judge is supposed to be interpreting the law, not being racially/sexually "wise" (i.e., taking one side out of ethnic or gender "empathy").
I don't think this exactly means that Sotomayor is a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!, but it was at best an ill-advised choice of words.
She not a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!? Dammit all, hey guys, stop the presses, toss the bumper stickers.
| 146 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 12:08:37pm |
re: #134 Flyers1974
Did you know that Judge Bork has stated that he does not believe the second amendment applies to individuals (although privately being pro-gun.)
I know he has his opinions on the term "well organized militia."
| 147 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:08:52pm |
re: #114 Charles
I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
True, there may be racists who don't like her because she is Hispanic -- but that still doesn't justify her statement. Just because other people are racist against her, doesn't negate the fact that she said a statement that could also be interpreted as racist.
She shouldn't have provided fodder for the white supremacists, but unfortunately, she did.
| 149 |
Baier Tue, May 26, 2009 12:09:15pm |
re: #144 lawhawk
How are you getting 11 of 44? Are you counting the actual breakdown of cases reversed - 7-2 in one case for example as being 7 reversals? That's not how it works. If one of her cases was reversed, it's one case reversed. I noted the Tasani case that dealt with copyright infringement, and it affirmed the ruling by the Court of Appeals, which overruled Sotomayor's trial court ruling. That case had a 7-2 majority, with Ginsberg delivering the majority opinion.
It's just one case out of many heard by the Supreme Court, which were overturned. I'm still trying to dig up the actual reversal rate.
He's not called lawhawk for nothing!
| 150 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:10:11pm |
re: #116 Occasional Reader
What?!
Imagine a white male nominee chatting away about how his "physiological differences" will allow him to reach "better conclusions" than those of a female Latina judge.
Hmmm -- reading the full context even seems to make her statement more offensive!
| 151 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 12:10:14pm |
re: #143 Guanxi88
Might be something to that. Still, I think it needs a test - he should nominate Bork instead, so we can see what happens.
A man can dream, can't he?
I wouldn't want Bork at this point - way too old. It would give 0 two shots at the same target.
| 152 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:10:21pm |
I'm just going to go ahead and say it:
I'm eminently unqualified to vet nominees to the SCOTUS, lacking as I do the understanding of the various nuances and what-have-you that must go into the process of screening candidates for nomination.
I'm ideologically opposed to Barry and most of what he supports, so, in this case, I will, by default, oppose the nomination, for all the good it does. (As if anyone is waiting for me to weigh in on it.)
| 153 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:11:28pm |
re: #151 SixDegrees
I wouldn't want Bork at this point - way too old. It would give 0 two shots at the same target.
True, but then, it's a dream.
| 154 |
Dave the..... Tue, May 26, 2009 12:11:37pm |
Leahy brought up the Ledbetter case today as a reason for supporting Sotomayer. If she would have overturned the statute of limitations law due to empathy for the party, that reason alone makes her unqualified.
Now, having said that, I don't know what her position is on the case.
| 155 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:11:41pm |
re: #137 Occasional Reader
Um... not I.
The judge is supposed to be interpreting the law, not being racially/sexually "wise" (i.e., taking one side out of ethnic or gender "empathy").
I don't think this exactly means that Sotomayor is a Stalinist Satan's Spawn!, but it was at best an ill-advised choice of words.
This. I suppose the argument is if the life experience even matters in deciding what the Constitution means. Strikes me that life experience means squat compared to, say, knowledge of early American history so you know what the founders actually meant. The background of the Justice or Plaintiff should have nothing at all to do with the judgement they receive, right? The judgement should be "colorblind."
| 156 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:11:46pm |
re: #138 Buck
unless the average is lower... I don't know.
Chief Justice Roberts:
During his two year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Roberts authored 49 opinions, eliciting two dissents from other judges, and authoring three dissents of his own.
2 of 49
| 157 |
Eowyn2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:12:36pm |
re: #114 Charles
I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
It still sounds disgusting. However, should that situation cannot arise in the present environment. The 'wise white male' would be tarred and feathered in 10.9.8..... Even if Thomas were to state that he is a wise black male, the press would go berserk.
| 158 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 12:12:49pm |
re: #140 SixDegrees
To be frank, I think just about everyone is uncomfortable simply because she was nominated by Obama. I also think that if Obama were to nominate Robert Bork, we would suddenly be hearing criticisms and suspicions raised over Bork's cherry-picked statements as well. Guilt by association.
Well, it stands to reason that if I do not trust Obama's judgment, then I will be uncomfortable with the decisions and nominations made, at least until I have more information. That is not unreasonable.
It actually appears to me (junderstanding I don't have a lot of info. just yet), that given my ideological differences with the O, she might not be such a bad choice.
| 159 |
Teh Flowah Tue, May 26, 2009 12:12:59pm |
Btw Posner is a super liberal judge who would do anything to see that the United States turns into the a communist society.
Extreme sarcasm.
| 160 |
Dave the..... Tue, May 26, 2009 12:13:22pm |
So I have to say this.....she could be worse. She could be from California.
| 161 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 12:13:48pm |
re: #147 zombie
True, there may be racists who don't like her because she is Hispanic -- but that still doesn't justify her statement. Just because other people are racist against her, doesn't negate the fact that she said a statement that could also be interpreted as racist.
She shouldn't have provided fodder for the white supremacists, but unfortunately, she did.
You are correct, but her statement is all too typical and commonplace among women and visible minorities. Why single her out among all the minority public figures who proudly display their particular chips on their respective shoulders.
| 162 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:14:46pm |
I'm still trying to understand why her rate of reversal, in and of itself, is important. If one is conservative, wouldn't you want an appellate judge to render conservative opinions? And if the SC were liberal, wouldn't that judge's opinions have a higher reversal rate? Would you want that judge to stop rendering conservative opinions to avoid the high reversal rate?
| 163 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:15:07pm |
re: #161 Spare O'Lake
You are correct, but her statement is all too typical and commonplace among women and visible minorities. Why single her out among all the minority public figures who proudly display their particular chips on their respective shoulders.
Why single her out? Because she uniquely is going to be on the Supreme Court -- that's why!
| 165 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:15:57pm |
re: #144 lawhawk
How are you getting 11 of 44? Are you counting the actual breakdown of cases reversed - 7-2 in one case for example as being 7 reversals? That's not how it works. If one of her cases was reversed, it's one case reversed. I noted the Tasani case that dealt with copyright infringement, and it affirmed the ruling by the Court of Appeals, which overruled Sotomayor's trial court ruling. That case had a 7-2 majority, with Ginsberg delivering the majority opinion.
It's just one case out of many heard by the Supreme Court, which were overturned. I'm still trying to dig up the actual reversal rate.
No, I thought I clarified and I understand that. A reversal is a reversal one time. The number represents 11 of 44 of the opportunities by the justices to uphold her decisions.
I'd love to see those numbers. I can't find a number of cases which were granted cert to square with the number reversed and I'm at work. As fate would have it we are putting together an application for further appellate review to the SJC of MA.
| 166 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 12:16:37pm |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
Conservative babies. That won't be a problem.
| 167 |
beens21 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:17:18pm |
I don't think much of the analysis or its methodology.I would like to hear from lawyers who tried cases against her in trial court, and lawyers who tried cases before her when she was a D. Judge, or argued cases before her in the 2nd Cir.They will have a wealth of info on her and be better analysts of her capabilities as a Justice, regardless of her politics.Any New York lawyers out there?
| 168 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 12:17:27pm |
re: #143 Guanxi88
Might be something to that. Still, I think it needs a test - he should nominate Bork instead, so we can see what happens.
A man can dream, can't he?
If for no other reason than watching various pundits contort themselves into pretzels, I'd love to see that.
| 169 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:17:35pm |
re: #162 Flyers1974
I'm still trying to understand why her rate of reversal, in and of itself, is important. If one is conservative, wouldn't you want an appellate judge to render conservative opinions? And if the SC were liberal, wouldn't that judge's opinions have a higher reversal rate? Would you want that judge to stop rendering conservative opinions to avoid the high reversal rate?
No! She was reversed in several cases for misinterpreting the law.
| 170 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 12:17:42pm |
I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.
Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?
| 171 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 12:17:43pm |
re: #158 reine.de.tout
Well, it stands to reason that if I do not trust Obama's judgment, then I will be uncomfortable with the decisions and nominations made, at least until I have more information. That is not unreasonable.
It actually appears to me (junderstanding I don't have a lot of info. just yet), that given my ideological differences with the O, she might not be such a bad choice.
I think the key here is to withhold judgment until all the facts are known. I doubt very, very much that she would be my pick if I had that power. But that's not going to happen, so for the moment I'd rather wait and get as many actual facts as I can.
| 172 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:18:08pm |
re: #164 Iron Fist
In truth, are the members of the Senate any more qualified than you or I to vet this nominee? Why? Because they won a popularity contest 50 years ago and have been bring home the pork ever since? Would anyone argue that Robert Byrd's experience in the Ku Klux klan made him any better than you or I to vet this nominee?
Whatever may be said about me and my rather colorful (at times) past, I can assure you that I never was in the Ku Klux Klan, nor would I have ever considered joining such an organization.
That puts me one ahead of Byrd, at the very least.
No, no, no, no. You see, being a (former) Kluxer makes Byrd eminently better suited to judge matters of racial discrimination, based on his RICH LIFE EXPERIENCE.
| 174 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:21pm |
re: #167 beens21
I don't think much of the analysis or its methodology.I would like to hear from lawyers who tried cases against her in trial court, and lawyers who tried cases before her when she was a D. Judge, or argued cases before her in the 2nd Cir.They will have a wealth of info on her and be better analysts of her capabilities as a Justice, regardless of her politics.Any New York lawyers out there?
Most cases she (or any other judge) would have heard do not involve political matters such as abortion, etc... .
| 175 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:32pm |
re: #166 HelloDare
Conservative babies. That won't be a problem.
No, that would make her a snob. Puppies are much cheaper.
/ask Dick Cheney
/
| 176 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:47pm |
re: #170 Charles
I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.
Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?
No enforcement.
| 177 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:51pm |
| 178 |
subsailor68 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:19:57pm |
re: #170 Charles
I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.
Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?
Yep, I like the 48 hour rule myself.
That said, however, I've read that jumping to conclusions is good exercise.
Oops, no wait, that's jumping jacks.
;-)
| 179 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 12:20:12pm |
re: #161 Spare O'Lake
You are correct, but her statement is all too typical and commonplace among women and visible minorities. Why single her out among all the minority public figures who proudly display their particular chips on their respective shoulders.
Nobody singled her out until she was nominated for such a consequential position.
| 180 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 12:20:16pm |
See page 10 for the details (no way to easily replicate the table here), but 2d Circuit had 1 case reversed, 1 vacated, and 3 affirmed.
9th Circuit had 5 reversed, 3, vacated, 2 affirmed.
For 2007, reversal statistics (again 10th page of pdf):
2d Circuit had 3 reversed and 2 affirmed
9th had 12 reversed 7 vacated and 2 affirmed.
For those two most recent years (2009 statistics wont be produced until November), 2d Circuit had 4 cases reversed, 3 vacated, and 4 affirmed.
Out of 11 cases, 4 were reversed. That's not 80%. It's also not a reflection of how the Supreme Court operates, given that in 2007 for example, 36 cases were reversed, 11 vacated, and 19 affirmed. Compared with the overall performance of all federal court of appeals decisions, the Second performed better than average given that the Court was twice as likely to reverse than affirm.
| 181 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:20:30pm |
re: #170 Charles
I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.
Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?
Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.
So that one, at least, seems to check out.
| 182 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 12:20:47pm |
The statistics I read (skimmed) paint her as average in most cases. Why can't Obama pick someone who was toward the top of some of those same statistics?
That said, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".
| 183 |
pink freud Tue, May 26, 2009 12:21:06pm |
re: #170 Charles
Just jumping into the thread, but I want to add that she finds herself in the unique position of having one of her rulings that has been appealed to the SC being ruled upon (and possibly overturned) as she sits for confirmation.
(The Connecticut fireman case, the ruling of which should be returned by the Supremes in July.)
| 184 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:22:12pm |
re: #169 loppyd
No! She was reversed in several cases for misinterpreting the law.
Almost every reversal is going to be based upon the higher court's reasoning that the lower court or judge misinterpreted the law.
| 185 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 12:22:22pm |
re: #156 loppyd
That goes to consensus, and Roberts was well known for getting consensus on his opinions. In fact, when discussing Roberts as Chief Justice, it was expected that we'd possibly see more unanimous decisions (we haven't). But it's an interesting metric.
I am looking to see whether there are any serious red flags regarding being overturned more than others - and that isn't the case.
| 186 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:22:24pm |
re: #180 lawhawk
Out of 11 cases, 4 were reversed. That's not 80%.
FWIW, I thought the "80%" reversal figure being bandied about supposedly referred to opinions that she authored, not to all 2nd Circuit opinions taken together.
| 187 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:22:26pm |
re: #181 Occasional Reader
Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.
So that one, at least, seems to check out.
The fact that she was thrice reversed by the SCOTUS for erring in the law is there for anyone to see as well.
| 188 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 12:22:59pm |
re: #183 pink freud
Just jumping into the thread, but I want to add that she finds herself in the unique position of having one of her rulings that has been appealed to the SC being ruled upon (and possibly overturned) as she sits for confirmation.
(The Connecticut fireman case, the ruling of which should be returned by the Supremes in July.)
It will be interesting to see how that ruling breaks, really interesting.
| 189 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:23:15pm |
re: #184 Flyers1974
Almost every reversal is going to be based upon the higher court's reasoning that the lower court or judge misinterpreted the law.
Which is why judges with a high reversal rate should set off a red flag.
| 190 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 12:23:20pm |
| 191 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 12:23:27pm |
re: #187 loppyd
The fact that she was thrice reversed by the SCOTUS for erring in the law is there for anyone to see as well.
Don't you mean, "Thrrrrrrice?"
You must roll the "rrrrr" of the tongue!
| 192 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 12:24:11pm |
re: #163 zombie
Why single her out? Because she uniquely is going to be on the Supreme Court -- that's why!
Correctimundo!
But still, all three branches are pretty much rife with similar-sounding statements.
And after all, her display of what could arguably called racial or feminist pride is not REALLY a reliable predictor of her judicial rulings, is it?
| 193 |
Eowyn2 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:24:36pm |
re: #160 Dave the.....
So I have to say this.....she could be worse. She could be from California.
or Chicago
| 194 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 12:25:12pm |
re: #49 zombie
I'm almost certain she'll get approved (no reason to reject her, really, as she is legitimately qualified...
eh? Qualified as a rational for SC approval left the building during the Reagan administration. A lot of 'political blood' has been spilled in a fight 'they' started. I don't see any good reason why the very minority party shouldn't continue to hold the line and make it as costly as possible to the other side.
| 195 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:25:23pm |
re: #189 loppyd
Which is why judges with a high reversal rate should set off a red flag.
That's fine, but would you have a problem if a conservative judge had a high rate of reversal due to a liberal SC? Or would you want that hypothetical lower court judge to continue to render conservative opinions regardless of how liberal the SC was?
| 197 |
Capitalist Tool Tue, May 26, 2009 12:26:15pm |
re: #170 Charles
True enough... Sean Hannity just opened today's broadcast by playing the nominee's "activist" quote w/out her immediate qualifying statements.
| 198 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 12:26:33pm |
| 199 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 12:26:40pm |
Let's have a look at the rest of her remarks, following the "wise Latina" section that's being quoted everywhere without context:
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.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
That just does not look so horribly "racist" to me.
| 200 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:26:43pm |
re: #192 Spare O'Lake
Correctimundo!
But still, all three branches are pretty much rife with similar-sounding statements.
And after all, her display of what could arguably called racial or feminist pride is not REALLY a reliable predictor of her judicial rulings, is it?
| 202 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:27:08pm |
re: #181 Occasional Reader
Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.
So that one, at least, seems to check out.
Very good point. And her comments on gun ownership are from a paper she wrote, I think more than 48 hours ago.
| 203 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:27:19pm |
A statement of "racial pride" in a non-minority would be effectively disqualifying (again, for good reason, IMO).
| 204 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:27:52pm |
re: #195 Flyers1974
That's fine, but would you have a problem if a conservative judge had a high rate of reversal due to a liberal SC? Or would you want that hypothetical lower court judge to continue to render conservative opinions regardless of how liberal the SC was?
They didn't reverse her on ideology. They reversed her because erred in applying the law.
| 205 |
beens21 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:27:54pm |
re: #174 Flyers1974
I know that.Lawyers who have interacted with her, whether it is in a deposition,response to a moton or brief,tried a case before her or dealt with her questions at oral argument, will have an opinion on whether she will make a good Justice. The stats in the cited article to me seem meaningless.
| 206 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:28:06pm |
re: #195 Flyers1974
That's fine, but would you have a problem if a conservative judge had a high rate of reversal due to a liberal SC? Or would you want that hypothetical lower court judge to continue to render conservative opinions regardless of how liberal the SC was?
In other words, reversal is due to ideological reasons not reasons related to competence. If Conservative SC, then liberal judges overturned more. If liberal SC, then conservative judges overturned more.
| 207 |
LGoPs Tue, May 26, 2009 12:28:30pm |
re: #114 Charles
I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
And I could not imagine any white judge daring make a statement like that. Not ever.
| 208 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 12:29:07pm |
re: #181 Occasional Reader
Well... that odd "physiological differences"/"wise Latina" bit is 1) in her own words, 2) reported by the liberal New York Times, 3) in a piece they published twelve days ago.
So that one, at least, seems to check out.
These two paragraphs are a few paragraphs after the one with the "wise Latina" in it:
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
.
| 209 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:29:55pm |
re: #199 Charles
Sorry, but even there, I see signs of something that bothers me:
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.
"Understanding the values and needs"? She thinks a judge should be a legislator, it seems. (And that's leaving aside the question of "what are those words code for, exactly?".)
| 210 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:29:59pm |
re: #170 Charles
I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.
Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?
It's a good rule, but at the pace things are going, while we sit around tying our shoelaces for 48 hours, everyone else just traipses up and down the field scoring political touchdown after political touchdown. By the time any sane blogger waits 48 hours and then finally enters the fray, the score will be 268 - 0 against him, and he might as well just forfeit.
The 48-hour rule has been replaced by the 48-second rule:
If you wait longer than 48 seconds to post your first hysterical comment on any topic, you are political roadkill.
| 211 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 12:30:32pm |
re: #186 Occasional Reader
If it really is 80% of her authored decisions, someone would have taken note far earlier than this (after all, she's on the Second Circuit for a decade), and written up this extensively.
I'd still love to see this breakdown.
| 212 |
kansas Tue, May 26, 2009 12:30:33pm |
re: #134 Flyers1974
Did you know that Judge Bork has stated that he does not believe the second amendment applies to individuals (although privately being pro-gun.)
Link please? Can't find that.
| 213 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 12:31:01pm |
| 214 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:31:06pm |
re: #205 beens21
I know that.Lawyers who have interacted with her, whether it is in a deposition,response to a moton or brief,tried a case before her or dealt with her questions at oral argument, will have an opinion on whether she will make a good Justice. The stats in the cited article to me seem meaningless.
Her clerks and some colleagues (anonomously sourced) have said she is not a brilliant mind as she is being heralded as and a "bully"...
And yes, you can be a judge and not be very swift. I have seen it with my very own eyes.
| 215 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:31:22pm |
re: #173 HelloDare
It's now the 48-second rule.
Drat! See what I mean about the pace of things? Scooped again, because i violated the 48-second rule myself.
| 216 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:31:29pm |
re: #204 loppyd
They didn't reverse her on ideology. They reversed her because erred in applying the law.
Same thing, in most cases. The reason for the "error" is a difference in opinion. Who has the correct opinion depends upon who controls the high court.
| 218 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:03pm |
re: #180 lawhawk
Thank you, Lawhawk. This is why I love LGF. The amount of fact-checking that goes on here is amazing.
| 219 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:12pm |
re: #171 SixDegrees
I think the key here is to withhold judgment until all the facts are known. I doubt very, very much that she would be my pick if I had that power. But that's not going to happen, so for the moment I'd rather wait and get as many actual facts as I can.
I agree with you - wait for more info.
However, I still think her choice of words in that statement that has been discussed here was - not well thought out.
| 220 |
LGoPs Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:21pm |
re: #170 Charles
I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.
Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?
I agree with the 48 hour rule. Bottom line is that Obama is going to get what he wants because of the makeup of the Senate, if nothing else. However, I will point out that if there are hard feelings and attacks starting, it was the Democrats that started the scorched earth policy on judicial nominees with Bork and Thomas. The courtesy of deferring to a President's judgement was killed by them.
| 221 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:24pm |
The "wise Latina" remark is troubling on 2 fronts. Most obviously is the racist overtone. But deeper, she was quoting from someone who said "a wise woman and a wise man will reach the same conclusion." Then she goes on to say that she does not believe this - that her race and gender gives her the point of view to make BETTER decisions than a white man. She obviously doesn't believe that "wise" in an of itself can produce good decisions. And that there is an inherent wisdom from a racial/ethnic/class/gender background.
And this POV is to be established for a lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. I don't really need 48 hours to be troubled.
| 222 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:48pm |
Charles, I suppose the point is one of "fairness."
That is, if the shoe were on the other foot, we might all agree that it is not "racist" but a statement of fact—our backgrounds inform our opinion, and thought process. None the less, if a white male said that, they'd be pilloried.
It's only fair, IMO, to hold everyone to the same standard. If a white guy would be bashed, then a hispanic woman should be too—even if we all might agree that it would be better if none were bashed for statements like this.
| 223 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:52pm |
re: #199 Charles
And to use your own "turn the tables" thought experiment from your post above:
I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my
LatinaWhite heritage.
How would that statement grab ya, from a white, male nominee?
| 224 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 12:32:54pm |
| 225 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:33:05pm |
re: #216 Flyers1974
Same thing, in most cases. The reason for the "error" is a difference in opinion. Who has the correct opinion depends upon who controls the high court.
Not at all the same thing.
| 226 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 12:34:15pm |
How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/
| 227 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 12:35:01pm |
re: #199 Charles
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.
But that's exactly what she is saying with her "wise Latina" remark, which is actually a stab at the quote, "a wise woman and a wise man will reach the same conclusion."
| 228 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 12:35:37pm |
| 229 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:35:51pm |
re: #223 Occasional Reader
Not only would the nominee be history, but the (Republican to fully reverse the scenario) President appointing them would ALSO be called a racist by the press (since his star chamber would clearly have known the mind of the nominee beforehand).
| 230 |
subsailor68 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:36:13pm |
I suppose I like the 48 hour rule because it gives everyone a chance to take a look at as much information as possible, separating the wheat from the chaff prior to taking a position. I know the opposition rarely does this, but we risk our credibility when we give the other side unnecessary ammunition.
The left is very skilled, and very ready, to take one statement - usually out of context - and use it to say "See, they're nothing but right wing crazies."
If the confirmation hearings were scheduled to start tomorrow, that might be one thing. I think we've got some time.
| 231 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:36:15pm |
re: #226 Killgore Trout
How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/
You're hanging out at Stormfront too much, it seems.
| 232 |
acwgusa Tue, May 26, 2009 12:36:27pm |
re: #226 Killgore Trout
How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/
Bleach.
/
| 233 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, May 26, 2009 12:36:33pm |
re: #30 FurryOldGuyJeans
Did I discount that the conspiracy devotees will have a go at this? Nope. Pushing this unproven idiocy will have as much credibility as do the troofers and nirthers.
Now what would be a good nickname for the 80% conspiracists?
Octoschmucks?
| 234 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:36:51pm |
re: #219 reine.de.tout
I agree with you - wait for more info.
However, I still think her choice of words in that statement that has been discussed here was - not well thought out.
I think it was well thought out. People who have to make statements in public a lot have scripts in their mind, pre-answers already formed, from answers or statements they have made before. I do it myself. I'll even create an idea or an opinion in my head, script out a basic "dialog" and it becomes "quote" ready when I need it, either when I am talking to someone about a topic, or here, or when I am writing a play. I do it with humor, observations of life and so on. It can become second nature to a person who is use to speaking in public or responding in public. Actors do it for a living, and you would be surprised who that develops a "scriptable mind" in a person and it becomes second nature.
I suspect that the judge has said this before, in one form or another, she just didn't form that detailed of an answer on the spot.
| 235 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:37:07pm |
re: #199 Charles
Let's have a look at the rest of her remarks, following the "wise Latina" section that's being quoted everywhere without context:
That just does not look so horribly "racist" to me.
Seems OK ... until that last line:
"I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast. (Lightly done Wonder Bread toast, but toast nonetheless.)
The more context I read, the more troubling statements I see.
| 236 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:37:18pm |
re: #233 _RememberTonyC
Octoschmucks?
"Octo" is well-overused these days. I would look for something better.
| 237 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 12:37:21pm |
re: #231 OldLineTexan
Sadly, they're much more relevant these days than they should be.
| 238 |
acwgusa Tue, May 26, 2009 12:37:29pm |
| 239 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:37:54pm |
re: #226 Killgore Trout
How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/
Fair is fair Killgore, that's what the world wants, that's what they need to get.
| 240 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 12:39:07pm |
re: #238 acwgusa
Damn it. That was meant to be a joke. Now it sounds crass.
Yes it is very crass. Try peroxide instead.
| 241 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 12:39:09pm |
I'm going to beat the 48-second rule by ANTICIPATING the next question: What if she's really bad, can we impeach her? Answer:
The process is the same as impeaching a President. The vote to impeach is done by simple majority of the House; this is after it passes a committee hearing on the grounds of impeachment. If the full House votes to impeach, it moves to the Senate who votes for conviction. It needs 2/3 majority to pass in the Senate. If it passes the Senate, the Judge is removed from Office.
Ohhh, the vision is fading! The future is now clouded...dang!
/h
| 242 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 12:39:49pm |
re: #223 Occasional Reader
How would that statement grab ya, from a white, male nominee?
It would be racist. And the speaker would be soundly and rightly denounced.
| 243 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:39:58pm |
re: #241 NelsFree
I'm going to beat the 48-second rule by ANTICIPATING the next question: What if she's really bad, can we impeach her? Answer:
The process is the same as impeaching a President. The vote to impeach is done by simple majority of the House; this is after it passes a committee hearing on the grounds of impeachment. If the full House votes to impeach, it moves to the Senate who votes for conviction. It needs 2/3 majority to pass in the Senate. If it passes the Senate, the Judge is removed from Office.
Ohhh, the vision is fading! The future is now clouded...dang!
/h
Thank you Professor Marvel.
/
| 244 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:40:04pm |
BTW, it's interesting that the Republican-appointed Justices seem to be all over the map from an ideological POV once they actually hit the SCOTUS. Does anyone know how many Democrat-appointed Justices have become "conservative" members of the court? None leap to mind.
| 245 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 12:40:47pm |
re: #238 acwgusa
Damn it. That was meant to be a joke. Now it sounds crass.
Well, how else can you keep your whites white? Bleach works well for it. Of course, it is perfectly acceptable while doing the laundry.
| 246 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:40:51pm |
re: #237 Killgore Trout
Sadly, they're much more relevant these days than they should be.
All 68 of them?
/
In any case, she does not alarm me by being female or Hispanic.
She alarms me by being an Obama nomination, as would any other Obama nomination.
Of course, the continuing hue and cry to Balkanize the Supreme Court into racial and gender-specific seats should be troubling to anyone, IMO, whether or not the Repubs are playing along (which they certainly have).
| 247 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, May 26, 2009 12:41:03pm |
re: #236 OldLineTexan
"Octo" is well-overused these days. I would look for something better.
that's why i went with it ... but do you like the "schmucks" part?
| 248 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 12:41:06pm |
The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.
Sotomayor: "Court of Appeals is where policy is made. I know, I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m...you know.”
| 249 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:41:27pm |
| 250 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:41:35pm |
re: #235 zombie
And if this were a sculptor applying for some sort of Arts Council grant and citing her "Latina heritage", it would be one thing. But judges are, by the nature of the profession, supposed to be striving to put aside such influences. Yet in her own words, she seems to either shrug off her "heritage"-based prejudices, or outright trumpet them.
| 251 |
J.S. Tue, May 26, 2009 12:41:41pm |
re: #223 Occasional Reader
Since supreme court justices acted like racists in the past, that means, she too can act like a racist...(or a tu quoque whine of "But you did it too!"....)
| 252 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 12:41:42pm |
re: #235 zombie
Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast. (Lightly done Wonder Bread toast, but toast nonetheless.)
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
| 253 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:42:50pm |
re: #248 HelloDare
The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.
[Video]
Well, isn't that special. Busted.
| 254 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 12:42:57pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
She didn't say "Puerto Rican."
| 255 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:02pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
Code words for white. He'd be toast.
| 256 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:06pm |
| 257 |
Rexatosis Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:07pm |
With regard to Judge Sotomayor's qualifications for SCOTUS. I am well versed in the New Haven Firefighter case. For me it goes to the heart of the matter. The decision rendered by Sotomayor etc. is so egregious (and blatantly racist) that I cannot and will not support her appointment to the Court.
| 258 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:07pm |
re: #248 HelloDare
The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.
Actually, on that one, I felt somewhat better about the "make policy" quote when I saw it in context.
The "wise Latina" quote, OTOH, seems to get worse the more context is added.
| 260 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:14pm |
re: #235 zombie
Seems OK ... until that last line:
"I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast. (Lightly done Wonder Bread toast, but toast nonetheless.)
The more context I read, the more troubling statements I see.
From this morning's announment, Sotomayor:
I firmly believe in the rule of law as the foundation for all of our basic rights…[and will] never forget the real-world consequences of my decisions.
As I read it: Rule of Law is fine; until it's unfair........
| 261 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:14pm |
re: #247 _RememberTonyC
that's why i went with it ... but do you like the "schmucks" part?
I have to say that my favorite aspect of Yiddish* are the colorful terms that come so easily to the English-speaker's tongue. ;)
*I think it's Yiddish
| 262 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:25pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
If you look at government forms where they tract "race," you'll find that while "Hispanic" is a choice, "Swedish-American," "Irish-American," or even good ole "American Mutt" is not an option.
| 263 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:35pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
It would be to me.
| 264 |
Vicious Babushka Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:38pm |
| 265 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:43pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
Ahem.....Ms. Sotomayor used "white male," so, yeah, proper analogy.
| 266 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:46pm |
re: #228 Spare O'Lake
Hmmm, tantalizing...
Did you forget the sarc tag or are you being snarky? Did you click on the link within the link?
| 267 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 12:43:59pm |
re: #235 zombie
Seems OK ... until that last line:
"I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast.
I don't think the term "white heritage" is the equivalent of "Latina heritage." One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
| 268 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 12:44:08pm |
re: #226 Killgore Trout
How will the white race survive these assaults on our whiteness?
/
Just because people are pointing out she made what seems to be a racist statement, doesn't mean that they themselves are racist for doing so.
Race should not be a topic in the law. But Obama keeps bring up people like Eric Holder ("We are a nation of cowards for not obsessing over race enough") and Sotomayor who won't let the topic drop.
I'm an anti-racist, and it seems to me that the identity politics and race-baiting of the Left is what is keepism racism alive in the public debate.
| 269 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 12:44:11pm |
re: #213 wrenchwench
Was that a written submission on her part? If so, I want to know where the notion that she writes well comes from!
| 270 |
justabill Tue, May 26, 2009 12:44:39pm |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
Hmm, I didn't see her there. She might be in a different baby eating satanic cult, or perhaps I didn't recognize her under the hood.
| 271 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:44:46pm |
re: #251 J.S.
Since supreme court justices acted like racists in the past, that means, she too can act like a racist...(or a tu quoque whine of "But you did it too!"....)
Actually, I don't think she was quite making the tu quoque (fallacious) argument. More like: Since "wise" judges made racist decisions in the past, therefore "wisdom" is baloney, and we should pay attention instead to skin color, gender, and ethnicity.
| 272 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:45:27pm |
re: #267 Charles
I don't think the term "white heritage" is the equivalent of "Latina heritage." One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
"Aryan Heritage" then? Say he was from a family with members in those fascist parties in Europe we all despise having anti-Jihadism associated with?
| 273 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 12:45:43pm |
re: #267 Charles
I don't think the term "white heritage" is the equivalent of "Latina heritage." One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
So substitute "white southern culture"?
| 274 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:09pm |
re: #272 spudly
"Aryan Heritage" then? Say he was from a family with members in those fascist parties in Europe we all despise having anti-Jihadism associated with?
No need to go there
| 275 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:15pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
Potentially, Killgore.
Anyway, I'll be quite frank about this, I've never understood why we separate "Hispanic" from "White", "Black", "Indian", "Asian", and "Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander". It's a very strange category as racial categories go, IMHO.
| 276 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:19pm |
re: #243 Walter L. Newton
You're welcome, Walter! Bless your heart!
| 277 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:43pm |
BTW, I purposely picked a very extreme example, that is an unambiguous "code word." (should have added this to my original post #272)
| 278 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:55pm |
re: #235 zombie
Seems OK ... until that last line:
"I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast. (Lightly done Wonder Bread toast, but toast nonetheless.)
The more context I read, the more troubling statements I see.
First, she did not say she would make rulings based on her gender and heritage. She said her gender and heritage would make some difference in her judging, while not knowing exactly what that difference will be. Second, if a white judge admitted that his background would make a difference in his judging, would the backlash be from political correctness? It looks like people want Sotomayor to claim that her ethnicity and gender make no difference, whether it's true or not.
| 279 |
J.S. Tue, May 26, 2009 12:46:59pm |
re: #268 zombie
The ideal (which I believe should be striven for) is to be color blind...not always obtained, obviously, but, nonetheless, a worthy ideal...
| 280 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:47:25pm |
re: #267 Charles
One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
Problem is, Sonia herself referred to "physiological and cultural" differences.
(Also, whether the term "Latino" refers strictly to culture is highly debatable.... kind of a muddled term, if you ask me.)
| 281 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 12:47:29pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
Would anybody even make a statement using Irish or Portuguese. It would sound silly. A judge is going to make judgments based on their Irish heritage? Their Portuguese heritage?
That would be flat out unacceptable.
| 282 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:47:37pm |
re: #244 spudly
BTW, it's interesting that the Republican-appointed Justices seem to be all over the map from an ideological POV once they actually hit the SCOTUS. Does anyone know how many Democrat-appointed Justices have become "conservative" members of the court? None leap to mind.
Byron White from JFK.
| 283 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 12:47:49pm |
re: #248 HelloDare
The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.
[Video]
More info on that comment:
"But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.
"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."
As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court -- itself a court of appeals -- involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. "There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior," he noted. "So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy."
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."
| 284 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:48:04pm |
re: #274 Nevergiveup
It was a sort of "boundary value" extreme example. The idea was that we'd ALL agree that "aryan" would be clear cut, if so, then what arbitrary point to one side of that would magically become non-offensive?
| 285 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 12:48:12pm |
re: #267 Charles
I don't think the term "white heritage" is the equivalent of "Latina heritage." One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
Well, with that analogy, there is not "white heritage."
| 286 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 12:48:24pm |
re: #271 Occasional Reader
Actually, I don't think she was quite making the tu quoque (fallacious) argument. More like: Since "wise" judges made racist decisions in the past, therefore "wisdom" is baloney, and we should pay attention instead to skin color, gender, and ethnicity.
But that's an exaggeration. She did qualify the statement, and said that "many are so capable" of making judgments related to groups other than their own. And she's not wrong when she points out that SC justices have, in the past, voted to uphold unjust laws.
I just don't see these statements as being horribly racist -- I think she made a fairly measured, qualified argument. I don't necessarily agree with the argument 100%, but she's not completely wrong, either.
| 287 |
LGoPs Tue, May 26, 2009 12:48:32pm |
re: #280 Occasional Reader
Problem is, Sonia herself referred to "physiological and cultural" differences.
(Also, whether the term "Latino" refers strictly to culture is highly debatable.... kind of a muddled term, if you ask me.)
I think La Raza would have some strong opinions on that.........
| 288 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:50:17pm |
re: #283 avanti
More info on that comment:
"But for legal experts, there is nothing actually controversial to what Sotomayor said. Her political crime, if there were one in this case, was speaking the truth.
"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."
As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court -- itself a court of appeals -- involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. "There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior," he noted. "So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy."
Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."
Avanti, then how come she was so quick in trying to dismiss what she had just said. And she was even doubly bothered by the fact that it was caught on tape.
She must have been bothered by something?
| 289 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 12:50:28pm |
Well, I guess she should disqualify herself from cases that involve Kansas.
| 290 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:50:52pm |
re: #286 Charles
I don't think it's horribly racist, but I do think that "reversed" the nominee would be instantly disqualified. I think many of us are reacting more to the unfairness, even though we'd abhor the reversed statement by a "white" judge (race is an entirely bogus notion, period, frankly, least according to my anthropologist friends).
| 291 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:05pm |
re: #170 Charles
I'm not supporting Sotomayor, by the way. But I'm not ready to hate her immediately either, just because the GOP has put out a list of cherry-picked talking points that are being dutifully spread by the usual partisan blogs and news sources.
Anyone remember that old 48-hour rule we used to have? Whatever happened to that?
Yep, in the end I expect to turn out to be another liberal judge I'm not going to agree with most of the time. That said I"m not going to jump on the "get Sotomayer - she the debbil!" bandwagon either. I think she's going to fly through the senate, and the Republican party is going to froth a lot about race (as can be seen already in this and prev. comment threads) and be distracted from the other crap that's flying through congress right now.
| 292 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:13pm |
re: #278 wrenchwench
First, she did not say she would make rulings based on her gender and heritage. She said her gender and heritage would make some difference in her judging, while not knowing exactly what that difference will be. Second, if a white judge admitted that his background would make a difference in his judging, would the backlash be from political correctness? It looks like people want Sotomayor to claim that her ethnicity and gender make no difference, whether it's true or not.
Se my #250. She is not merely pointing out that (of course) "I am influenced by my background"; she seems to be essentially promising that she will not even attempt to put her own prejudices aside. That's what is disturbing. It's the whole "as a [fill in identy group here], I believe that..." concept. There is no right answer, see, it's all just an expression of bias, so we might as well celebrate our biases! (Except for you Pale Penis People over there, of course.)
| 293 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:25pm |
re: #266 loppyd
Did you forget the sarc tag or are you being snarky? Did you click on the link within the link?
I'm not going to take that kind of abuse from you.
Just because the Blue Jays have tanked and lost their last 7 in a row doesn't mean you can jump down my throat like that.
GO JAYS.
| 294 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:27pm |
re: #250 Occasional Reader
And if this were a sculptor applying for some sort of Arts Council grant and citing her "Latina heritage", it would be one thing. But judges are, by the nature of the profession, supposed to be striving to put aside such influences. Yet in her own words, she seems to either shrug off her "heritage"-based prejudices, or outright trumpet them.
It sounds like you object to her admission that there is something to strive to put aside.
From the speech in the NYT:
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
| 295 |
debutaunt Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:28pm |
re: #21 Charles
Hey, did you hear that Sotomayor belongs to a satanic cult that eats babies?
/
Was that 80% verified?
| 296 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:34pm |
re: #267 Charles
I don't think the term "white heritage" is the equivalent of "Latina heritage." One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
I'm not sure that makes one an acceptable term and the other not.
For one thing, I don't know that I believe there is one "white heritage", or a monolithic "latino/a heritage", either. My ex was an Argentinian Jew; one of my best friends was a Chilean of mixed descent. They both spoke Spanish, Italian, French and English (widely traveled guys).
Culturally, however, they could not have been more different.
| 297 |
beens21 Tue, May 26, 2009 12:51:45pm |
[Link: bench.nationalreview.com...] now this is a bit eye opening.The Ricci case,just argued to the S.Ct.,was an unpublished opinion in the trial ct.(unusual for this type of case) and then was an unpublished opinion in the 2nd Cir by Sotomayor,even more unusual.Then J Cabrenes rips them on the en banc motion, and Sotomayor and other two Judges replace long opinion with a published one paragraph Order.And the USSCT grants cert on a one paragraph Order,or was it the unpublished Opinion? This needs more research and discussion because I doubt whether any other case has gone to the Sups. in such a manner, with such an effort by the App. Ct to hide its opinion.
| 298 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 12:52:13pm |
re: #285 Ben Hur
Well, with that analogy, there is not "white heritage."
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
| 299 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:52:13pm |
re: #286 Charles
But that's an exaggeration. She did qualify the statement, and said that "many are so capable" of making judgments related to groups other than their own. And she's not wrong when she points out that SC justices have, in the past, voted to uphold unjust laws.
I just don't see these statements as being horribly racist -- I think she made a fairly measured, qualified argument. I don't necessarily agree with the argument 100%, but she's not completely wrong, either.
So, pointing out that SC justices were probably wrong in the past, and that they have made ruling that may have been made due to the fact that they were coming at the problem as white males, that makes it alright for her to suppose that it's fine for her to make ruling that may be due to her latin heritage?
Sounds like a double standard to me.
| 300 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 12:52:14pm |
re: #283 avanti
That's an awlful lot of effort to try to parse what she said in order to minimalize the impact and impression it makes.
| 301 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 12:52:56pm |
From this morning's announcement, Sotomayor said:
I firmly believe in the rule of law Constitution as the foundation for all of our basic rights…[and will] never forget accept the real-world consequences of my decisions.
There, fixed it for her!
/who's got her email address?
| 302 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 12:52:59pm |
According to Judgepedia, Sotomayor was reversed 4 times when she was the author of the opinion in question while on the 2d Circuit. Three of the four reversals were based on statutory interpretation.
| 303 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 12:53:39pm |
re: #298 Charles
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
There is no Latino Heritage.
My Argentinian wife has no connectino the Mexican, etc culture.
| 304 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 12:53:45pm |
One other note on this: you will be able to tell over the next few weeks how much hold the Socons still hold on the party vs. their professed "Fiscon" coats by how a big an issue this becomes on conservative blogs.
If it's A number one with a bullet until confirmation, well that will tell you a lot.
| 305 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:53:54pm |
re: #286 Charles
I just don't see these statements as being horribly racist
Please note that I never qualified them as "horribly racist".
But she does seem to be quite comfortable with the idea that her gender and ethnicity give her access to "better" answers than a white male could come up with. And of course, that seems to be based on the idea that there's an OBVIOUSLY RIGHT answer to, e.g., any "reverse discrimination" case (which is, naturally, the liberal one).
| 306 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 12:53:58pm |
re: #280 Occasional Reader
(Also, whether the term "Latino" refers strictly to culture is highly debatable.... kind of a muddled term, if you ask me.)
It, like all racial categories, is a muddled term. They tend also to pigeonhole a person into said category.
Personally, I'm not fond of the categories. What is "White"? Is it European ancestry, Middle Eastern ancestry? What is "African-American"? Can it include people of all skin tones from places a diverse ad Egypt, South Africa, and Kenya? What is "Hispanic"? Why does it include such diverse people as blue-eyed Argentinians and brown-eyed Mexicans?
I hate these categories, and when it comes time for me to answer the census in 2010, I think I'll just put "Other". I'm an American, damnit, with ancestry from different places, as we all are. The 1/8th rule and the drop of blood should be discarded in the dustbin of history.
| 307 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:54:02pm |
re: #298 Charles
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
Couldn't the same be true of Latino Heritage?
Mexican culture is NOT Spanish culture, for example, any more than American culture s British. Being co-linguists doesn't make you a monolithic culture.
| 308 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 12:54:53pm |
re: #298 Charles
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
I'm sure she meant specifically a Puerto Rican living in the Bronx, which is an American.
| 309 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 12:55:16pm |
re: #298 Charles
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
What's Latino heritage? Dominican? Puerto Rican? Mexican? Argentinian? Spanish? Once you start making distinctions, were does it end?
| 310 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 12:55:18pm |
re: #288 Walter L. Newton
Avanti, then how come she was so quick in trying to dismiss what she had just said. And she was even doubly bothered by the fact that it was caught on tape.
She must have been bothered by something?
You could see why on the tape. The fact that courts do make policy, while true, is not a popular concept in some circles. Be they conservative, or liberal, court decisions do set policy.
| 311 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:55:51pm |
re: #304 Thanos
One other note on this: you will be able to tell over the next few weeks how much hold the Socons still hold on the party vs. their professed "Fiscon" coats by how a big an issue this becomes on conservative blogs.
If it's A number one with a bullet until confirmation, well that will tell you a lot.
It has nothing to do with socon v. whatever other nickname you want to come up with...it is a matter of upholding the law and interpreting the constitution.
| 312 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:56:08pm |
re: #294 wrenchwench
re: #250 Occasional Reader
It sounds like you object to her admission that there is something to strive to put aside.From the speech in the NYT:
I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
When, exactly, are a judge's prejudices "appropriate", in rendering a decision in a case?
Sotomayor is asserting that they can be.
Do you agree?
| 313 |
Vicious Babushka Tue, May 26, 2009 12:56:32pm |
Uh oh, moonbats may be on to the Lizard Overlord's Secret Hideout
| 314 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 12:56:35pm |
re: #309 Nevergiveup
What's Latino heritage? Dominican? Puerto Rican? Mexican? Argentinian? Spanish? Once you start making distinctions, were does it end?
I agree. She should be color/heritage blind.
| 316 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 12:56:44pm |
re: #283 avanti
Good point. I just listened to the quote in context. Which you can find here.
| 317 |
J.S. Tue, May 26, 2009 12:56:48pm |
re: #292 Occasional Reader
I read her statements as someone who is willing to grant for herself an "exemption" (give herself a "special dispensation"), and, after all, even an Oliver Wendell Holmes engaged in discriminatory rulings.
| 318 |
ConservatismNow! Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:02pm |
re: #303 Ben Hur
There is no Latino Heritage.
My Argentinian wife has no connectino the Mexican, etc culture.
don't tell La Raza that.
| 319 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:22pm |
re: #314 loppyd
I agree. She should be color/heritage blind.
I just think once you start using division politics, you are getting into dangerous territory.
| 320 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:23pm |
re: #307 spudly
Couldn't the same be true of Latino Heritage?
Mexican culture is NOT Spanish culture, for example, any more than American culture s British. Being co-linguists doesn't make you a monolithic culture.
Very true. Try calling a Puerto Rican a Mexican by mistake sometime. You'll never hear the end of it.
| 321 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:25pm |
re: #298 Charles
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
Then...why is it acceptable to talk about "latino/a heritage"? I am lost on this one.
| 322 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:26pm |
re: #291 Thanos
She'll be confirmed, and the GOP doesn't have much chance to do anything about that. Still, her comments do leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Judges currency is in the words they use. It goes to character and judgment. Some, like Cardozo are legend for their word smithing. Others end up being reconciled to the dustbin of history as footnotes in cases long forgotten. It remains to be seen whether she's up to the task (and any lurking skeletons).
| 323 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:35pm |
re: #303 Ben Hur
There is no Latino Heritage.
My Argentinian wife has no connectino the Mexican, etc culture.
I didn't know you had an Argentinian wife.
Porteña?
| 324 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:36pm |
re: #312 Occasional Reader
re: #250 Occasional Reader
When, exactly, are a judge's prejudices "appropriate", in rendering a decision in a case?
Sotomayor is asserting that they can be.
Do you agree?
I was hoping you could help me with the "as the Supreme Court suggests" part.
| 325 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:40pm |
re: #310 avanti
You could see why on the tape. The fact that courts do make policy, while true, is not a popular concept in some circles. Be they conservative, or liberal, court decisions do set policy.
She was upset that she spoke the truth, and guess what? Courts are not suppose to make policy. I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal court or judge. That is not the issue.
Don't you see the problem. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO MAKE POLICY.
Just because there are many cases where they DO, does not make it RIGHT.
Do you understand the distinction?
| 326 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:41pm |
re: #315 Iron Fist
Doesn't that make her a Yankee? Yankee go home!
:-)
Gee the only thing I like about her?
| 327 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 12:57:57pm |
re: #283 avanti
So, two liberal law professors rebutted a conservative talking point? Why should we accept their statements as gospel?
/?
| 328 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, May 26, 2009 12:58:13pm |
re: #261 OldLineTexan
I have to say that my favorite aspect of Yiddish* are the colorful terms that come so easily to the English-speaker's tongue. ;)
*I think it's Yiddish
yiddish it is! there are so many good ones ... here's one of my favorites:
Q: What's the difference between a "Schlemiel" and a "Schlamazal?"
A: A schlemiel spills his soup at the dinner table ... and a schlamazel is the one he spilled it on.
| 329 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 12:58:18pm |
re: #291 Thanos
Yep, in the end I expect to turn out to be another liberal judge I'm not going to agree with most of the time. That said I"m not going to jump on the "get Sotomayer - she the debbil!" bandwagon either. I think she's going to fly through the senate, and the Republican party is going to froth a lot about race (as can be seen already in this and prev. comment threads) and be distracted from the other crap that's flying through congress right now.
It's not about hating her. She's what we expected, what Obama told us he'd appoint. Obama views the world, the Constitution, the country differently than I do. It think his views are historically, factually wrong. He wouldn't appoint a justice I could support.
She's a liberal activist judge. Which is what Obama thinks a judge should be.
| 330 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 12:58:25pm |
re: #298 Charles
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
Similarly, once one talks about "black heritage" one is also in fascist territory.
| 331 |
Danny Tue, May 26, 2009 12:58:26pm |
I don't think she's a terrible nominee, but it's hard to believe that there aren't better candidates. I also don't see how, on the whole, Posner's blog post suggests that she's a stronger pick than Alito was, just because her ranking was higher in 2 out of 5 criteria.
| 332 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 12:58:55pm |
Take Hispanics themselves. Here in New Mexico, New Mexican food (not the same at all as Mexican, though similar in some ways) is called "Mexican food" or "New Mexican food" South of Santa Fe. North? It's "Spanish food." That's because the Hispanics—who have have family here going back for hundreds of years—don't like their food associated with "Mexicans." They see themselves as decedents of the Conquistadors, and hence "spanish." These are areas where many people still speak spanish, as well.
They certainly do not respect the notion of a monolithic "hispanic" culture.
| 333 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 12:59:13pm |
re: #323 Occasional Reader
I didn't know you had an Argentinian wife.
Porteña?
I have a Jewish princess for a wife?
/ducking for deep cover
| 334 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 12:59:46pm |
re: #300 Athos
That's an awlful lot of effort to try to parse what she said in order to minimalize the impact and impression it makes.
If we did not think courts make policy, no one would pay much attention to the makeup of the court.
| 335 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 12:59:54pm |
re: #324 wrenchwench
I was hoping you could help me with the "as the Supreme Court suggests" part.
I am unaware of the Supreme Court ever deciding that a judge's prejudices are appropriate for him/her to take into account in deciding a case.
| 336 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 12:59:57pm |
re: #330 Spare O'Lake
Similarly, once one talks about "black heritage" one is also in fascist territory.
La Raza, Stormfront, and Black Panthers are all of the same cloth, IMHO.
| 337 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:00:15pm |
re: #323 Occasional Reader
I didn't know you had an Argentinian wife.
Porteña?
Her father is Argentinian.
His parents settled there in the late 1800's or something.
He made Aliya to Israel as a young man. Was sent back (and all over SA) as a bank rep.
She spent most of her childhood there.
| 338 |
J.S. Tue, May 26, 2009 1:00:50pm |
re: #335 Occasional Reader
but, but, but don't two wrongs make it right?
| 339 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:04pm |
re: #311 loppyd
It has nothing to do with socon v. whatever other nickname you want to come up with...it is a matter of upholding the law and interpreting the constitution.
uh huh.
| 340 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:11pm |
I gotta go get some work done. I'll check back.
| 341 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:15pm |
re: #332 spudly
Take Hispanics themselves. Here in New Mexico, New Mexican food (not the same at all as Mexican, though similar in some ways) is called "Mexican food" or "New Mexican food" South of Santa Fe. North? It's "Spanish food." That's because the Hispanics—who have have family here going back for hundreds of years—don't like their food associated with "Mexicans." They see themselves as decedents of the Conquistadors, and hence "spanish." These are areas where many people still speak spanish, as well.
They certainly do not respect the notion of a monolithic "hispanic" culture.
You're spot on on this. My ex-wife was Spanish/Pueblo Indian, her ancestors go back to 1600's here in Colorado, via Florida, and they see a BIG difference between Mexicans, Latino's and Spanish.
| 342 |
Scorch Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:18pm |
Posner wrote about Guantanamo which I wish the screaming critics of our detaining people who are threats would read. They would probably just toss it aside anyway. So right or wrong I will use his judgment as a guide for my own opinion on this latest selection for the highest court in the land.
| 343 |
IslandLibertarian Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:22pm |
| 344 |
amir Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:37pm |
Am I the only one here that appreciates her honesty?
| 345 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 1:01:56pm |
re: #335 Occasional Reader
I am unaware of the Supreme Court ever deciding that a judge's prejudices are appropriate for him/her to take into account in deciding a case.
Must have been a reference to something earlier in the speech. I'll look later.
| 346 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:02:22pm |
re: #337 Ben Hur
He made Aliya to Israel as a young man. Was sent back (and all over SA) as a bank rep.
I KNEW IT! DA JUICE CONTROL DA BANKS!
| 347 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 1:02:23pm |
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
| 348 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:02:34pm |
Look we all have prejudices we bring to how we see things. You try to be as intellectually honest as you can and minimize them, but we are what we are. I do not like her as a nominee because I think she will be ultra liberal and legislate from the bench mixing her "empathy" with a sprinkle of law ( or the other way around depending on your point of view).
| 349 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:02:55pm |
| 350 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 1:03:48pm |
re: #322 lawhawk
She'll be confirmed, and the GOP doesn't have much chance to do anything about that. Still, her comments do leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Judges currency is in the words they use. It goes to character and judgment. Some, like Cardozo are legend for their word smithing. Others end up being reconciled to the dustbin of history as footnotes in cases long forgotten. It remains to be seen whether she's up to the task (and any lurking skeletons).
I agree, don't like what I've seen so far but I expect to see everything negative first. I don't expect I'll agree with her most of the time. But elections have consequences is the term to apply.
What will be interesting is to see how many step back from Republicans don't have litmus tests for judges....
| 351 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 1:03:49pm |
I'm concerned about Sotomayor's liberal heritage.
| 352 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:03:51pm |
re: #316 HelloDare
Good point. I just listened to the quote in context. Which you can find here.
Great catch, thanks.
| 353 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:04:19pm |
re: #337 Ben Hur
Her father is Argentinian.
His parents settled there in the late 1800's or something.
He made Aliya to Israel as a young man. Was sent back (and all over SA) as a bank rep.
She spent most of her childhood there.
By the way, did you see my posts from last week about the anti-Semitic attacks in Buenos Aires, at the Israel Independence Day ceremony?
| 354 |
amir Tue, May 26, 2009 1:04:34pm |
"our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
This is absolutely true and it's better to recognize this fact than deny it.
| 355 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:04:54pm |
re: #315 Iron Fist
Doesn't that make her a Yankee? Yankee go home!
:-)
Yer cultural heritage is a-showin', boy. Hitch up yer britches and git back 'er behind thet mule.
/
| 356 |
pre-Boomer Marine brat Tue, May 26, 2009 1:05:07pm |
(a VERY quik drive-by ... am very busy)
Charles,
Thanks VERY much for posting the Posner link.
Finally had time to come back and read it.
/zipping outta th' room
| 357 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:05:36pm |
re: #354 amir
"our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
This is absolutely true and it's better to recognize this fact than deny it.
Fine recognize it, but intellectually fight against it, and make your rulings according to something called the LAW.
| 358 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:05:52pm |
re: #353 Occasional Reader
By the way, did you see my posts from last week about the anti-Semitic attacks in Buenos Aires, at the Israel Independence Day ceremony?
Yes.
It's up everywhere.
I knew it was bad there when Adrianna Lima told me I was her first "Jew."
I said, "Adriana! It's 'Jewish person," please!"
| 359 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:05:52pm |
re: #318 ConservatismNow!
don't tell La Raza that.
My Colombian co-worker had no use for fake Aztecs.
;)
| 360 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 1:05:53pm |
I think it was a brilliant pick on Obama's part, and that it will keep us R's tied up in knots for weeks. That doesn't mean I like, nor that I admire Obama.
| 361 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:06:10pm |
re: #354 amir
"our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
This is absolutely true and it's better to recognize this fact than deny it.
She is not merely "recognizing" it, she is celebrating it.
She is claiming it as an advantage in her case.
Please see my question in #312. Do YOU have an answer?
| 362 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:06:16pm |
re: #354 amir
"our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
This is absolutely true and it's better to recognize this fact than deny it.
What's her national origin?
| 363 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 1:06:17pm |
re: #116 Occasional Reader
Imagine a white male nominee chatting away about how his "physiological differences" will allow him to reach "better conclusions" than those of a female Latina judge.
On this -- I think it's pretty clear from the context of the rest of her speech that "physiological differences" refers to the difference between male and female, not skin color.
| 364 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:07:02pm |
re: #358 Ben Hur
I knew it was bad there when Adrianna Lima told me I was her first "Jew."
She was probably pissed about you misspelling her name. (It's one 'n', you heathen swine!)
| 365 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 1:07:21pm |
I looked it up a while back when W was appointing Justices, but the Republicans have a history of rubber-stamping Democratic SCOTUS picks, and it seemed that a substantial majority of the candidates who bowed out, or r who were not confirmed were Republicans.
I suppose that is a good principal—that it's the other guy's right to pick the Justice they want. The problem is that the Democrats always vote on Justices for ideology, not just the notion of disqualifying them based on credentials.
| 367 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:07:39pm |
re: #364 Occasional Reader
She was probably pissed about you misspelling her name. (It's one 'n', you heathen swine!)
SOrry.
Had her confused with Huffington.
Now THAT was a night!
| 368 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:07:51pm |
| 369 |
irongrampa Tue, May 26, 2009 1:07:52pm |
Complete naif here about the law, but isn't there a reason that Justice is portrayed with a blindfold on? Doesn't this purport that justice is blind?
I think that means that a judge must decide according to the law, and strive mightily to prevent any predjudice from entering into any decision, and apply the law as it is written.
Or am I being dumb here?
| 370 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:07:54pm |
re: #360 Thanos
I think it was a brilliant pick on Obama's part, and that it will keep us R's tied up in knots for weeks. That doesn't mean I like, nor that I admire Obama.
I don't think it was brilliant. She is not the best qualified. It's a political choice to pacify his liberal base. He has the votes baring a disaster. He is no compromiser. He is gonna get what he wants on this.
| 371 |
DaddyG Tue, May 26, 2009 1:07:57pm |
re: #298 Charles
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
Unless your family name is White. //
| 372 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:08:37pm |
re: #363 Charles
On this -- I think it's pretty clear from the context of the rest of her speech that "physiological differences" refers to the difference between male and female, not skin color.
Okay. So she's suggesting she'll reach "better" decisions because she has no Y chromosome. I don't think that's much of an improvement.
| 373 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:08:45pm |
| 374 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:08:56pm |
Obama keeps telling us it's not about race. Yes, it is a lot about race. That term has become a mantra from the left to make conservatives feel bad about the past race relations in this country. Well, yes, we do have things to own up to when it comes to past race relations.
But, using a term like "it's not about race" and badgering us with it over and over, and then at the same time making decisions, making appointments and making laws that IS ABOUT RACE, is ludicrous.
It's sleight of hand. It's trying to make us walk on ice in regards to racial issues, when at the same time, they use race as bargaining chip, a tactic, a way to play favorites.
No, I'm not going to support a judge that can make statement like that and at the same time the left is telling me I have to ignore statements like that.
I'm a magician myself, you can't fool me like that.
| 375 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 1:09:00pm |
re: #360 Thanos
Actually, I don't see it doing anything of the kind. This is actually a pretty cut and dried confirmation process. She's not a complete unknown, there are reversals (4) and some statements on the record that she'll have to address. She'll do the usual nominee bob and weave - avoiding answering the questions posed by Senators who would much rather hear themselves than ask real questions, and she'll be confirmed by a 70-30 margin.
Sound and fury, signifying not much.
That said, this will provide the summer entertainment in DC since Congress will generally be out of session and there isn't much else for the political class to do.
| 376 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 1:09:06pm |
| 377 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:09:08pm |
re: #225 loppyd
Not at all the same thing.
An "error" is made if the higher court says so. These errors are the result in a difference of philosophical opinion, not an inability to read, etc... . If a liberal court rules that outlawing abortion is a violation of privacy, a lower court opinion to the contrary is an "error." It is not an error because of a mistake on the lower court's part. The lower court in my hypo did not accidentally rule against abortion and to its surprise find itself overturned - that hypothetical judge ruled likely knowing it would be overturned, but ruled as such nonetheless, as a matter of principle. Not all judges view the doctrine of precedent as legitimate.
| 378 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:09:29pm |
re: #354 amir
"our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
This is absolutely true and it's better to recognize this fact than deny it.
It may be true, but it doesn't make it right.
| 379 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 1:09:40pm |
re: #369 irongrampa
Complete naif here about the law, but isn't there a reason that Justice is portrayed with a blindfold on? Doesn't this purport that justice is blind?
I think that means that a judge must decide according to the law, and strive mightily to prevent any predjudice from entering into any decision, and apply the law as it is written.
Or am I being dumb here?
That idea so dead white man.......
Rule of Law! pffft, it's all about feelings now.
| 380 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:09:42pm |
re: #372 Occasional Reader
Okay. So she's suggesting she'll reach "better" decisions because she has no Y chromosome. I don't think that's much of an improvement.
She might reach better decisions because she has no Y chromosome, but that means SHE SUCKS AT MATH!
| 381 |
kansas Tue, May 26, 2009 1:10:04pm |
re: #248 HelloDare
The 34-second rule. Don't make up your mind till you've seen this short video.
[Video]
Well, she does say they don't make law. Wink nod.
| 382 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 1:10:17pm |
re: #363 Charles
On this -- I think it's pretty clear from the context of the rest of her speech that "physiological differences" refers to the difference between male and female, not skin color.
She did not say a male noninee and a female nominee. She said "white male" nominee and "female Latina judge."
| 383 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 1:10:40pm |
re: #316 HelloDare
Good point. I just listened to the quote in context. Which you can find here.
What I heard her say at one point (1:20) was, "The Appeals Court is where you consider how the law is developing, so you can then apply it to a broad class of cases".
I thought the Appeals Court reviewed the validity of the lower case's ruling and procedure! This just gets more interesting...
| 384 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 1:10:45pm |
re: #366 Iron Fist
Funny, but I don't recall hearing that from the Left when W won his first election. Or when he won re-election. I guess it is like the concept of "loyal opposition". It only applies to Republicans. Democrats are measured by a different yardstick altogether.
No it was a term R's used, and there shouldn't be litmus tests other than "qualification". So will they step back from that into hypocrisy or not is what I"m wondering.
| 385 |
Vicious Babushka Tue, May 26, 2009 1:11:00pm |
re: #380 Ben Hur
She might reach better decisions because she has no Y chromosome, but that means SHE SUCKS AT MATH!
Hey, I have a degree in Math, graduated with honors. What's your degree in?
| 386 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:11:17pm |
re: #363 Charles
On this -- I think it's pretty clear from the context of the rest of her speech that "physiological differences" refers to the difference between male and female, not skin color.
Then why use the term Latina. And aren't some latinos/latinas white skinned? That is why I think this crazy argument. Either the LAW is colorblind and ethnicity blind or it's not. Either it strives to be colorblind and ethnicity blind or it doesn't!
| 387 |
kansas Tue, May 26, 2009 1:11:18pm |
re: #374 Walter L. Newton
Obama keeps telling us it's not about race. Yes, it is a lot about race. That term has become a mantra from the left to make conservatives feel bad about the past race relations in this country. Well, yes, we do have things to own up to when it comes to past race relations.
But, using a term like "it's not about race" and badgering us with it over and over, and then at the same time making decisions, making appointments and making laws that IS ABOUT RACE, is ludicrous.
It's sleight of hand. It's trying to make us walk on ice in regards to racial issues, when at the same time, they use race as bargaining chip, a tactic, a way to play favorites.
No, I'm not going to support a judge that can make statement like that and at the same time the left is telling me I have to ignore statements like that.
I'm a magician myself, you can't fool me like that.
Powell said it wasn't about race too, and I think the consensus here was to take him at his word.
| 388 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:12:01pm |
re: #383 NelsFree
What I heard her say at one point (1:20) was, "The Appeals Court is where you consider how the law is developing, so you can then apply it to a broad class of cases".
I thought the Appeals Court reviewed the validity of the lower case's ruling and procedure! This just gets more interesting...
I can't find fault with that quote, frankly. Yes, appellate decisions have much greater precedential value than do trial court decisions. Always been that way.
| 389 |
MrSilverDragon Tue, May 26, 2009 1:12:28pm |
re: #313 Alouette
Uh oh, moonbats may be on to the Lizard Overlord's Secret Hideout
I can't stand the narrator's voice.
| 390 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:12:34pm |
re: #385 Alouette
Hey, I have a degree in Math, graduated with honors. What's your degree in?
Easy there, tiger.
I think Ben was riffing on the Larry Summers "scandal".
| 391 |
amir Tue, May 26, 2009 1:12:34pm |
re: #357 Nevergiveup
I agree with what you're saying. It's easier to deal with our prejudices once we recognize them. The ruling must reflect the law. Talking about race and gender prejudices is better then making the subject. She should not be attacked for attempting to tackle the issue. I might come to a different conclusion than she has, though.
| 392 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:13:48pm |
re: #391 amir
I agree with what you're saying. It's easier to deal with our prejudices once we recognize them. The ruling must reflect the law. Talking about race and gender prejudices is better then making the subject. She should not be attacked for attempting to tackle the issue. I might come to a different conclusion than she has, though.
Discussing them is one thing, but saying you are going to base your "LEGAL" decision upon them is a whole other animal.
| 393 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:13:59pm |
re: #385 Alouette
Hey, I have a degree in Math, graduated with honors. What's your degree in?
She claims that because she is a woman, she innately will judge differently than a man.
It was reference to this scandal:
CAMBRIDGE -- The president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, sparked an uproar at an academic conference Friday when he said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers.
When a woman says there are innate differences, it's progress.
When a man does.....not so much.
| 394 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:09pm |
re: #390 Occasional Reader
Easy there, tiger.
I think Ben was riffing on the Larry Summers "scandal".
Use the 48 hour rule and blindside him in two days.
/
| 395 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:19pm |
re: #363 Charles
On this -- I think it's pretty clear from the context of the rest of her speech that "physiological differences" refers to the difference between male and female, not skin color.
... and I don't agree. I think she was deliberately fudging with the term - conflating "I'm a woman" and "my skin is a different complexion from Felix Frankfurter's". When law folks (especially liberal ones) want to say "gender", they say "gender".
| 396 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:24pm |
re: #385 Alouette
Hey, I have a degree in Math, graduated with honors. What's your degree in?
History.
FWIW.
| 397 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:31pm |
re: #252 Killgore Trout
I'm not sure that using white is the proper analogy. How about if someone used "Irish"? Maybe "Italian", or "Portuguese"? Would those also be offensive?
Yes.
Why does a judge's ethnic heritage have any relevance whatsoever?
For a "post-racial" president, Obama seems intent on keeping race the #1 hot-button issue. "Disappointing" doesn't even begin to describe my feelings about what Obama has done on this issue.
| 398 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 1:14:37pm |
| 399 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 1:15:00pm |
re: #359 OldLineTexan
My Colombian co-worker had no use for fake Aztecs.
;)
Real Aztecs would be even more worrisome!
| 400 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:15:05pm |
re: #393 Ben Hur
Should I be downright worried about the fact that I actually seem to understand how you think?
| 401 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:15:15pm |
re: #369 irongrampa
Complete naif here about the law, but isn't there a reason that Justice is portrayed with a blindfold on? Doesn't this purport that justice is blind?
I think that means that a judge must decide according to the law, and strive mightily to prevent any predjudice from entering into any decision, and apply the law as it is written.
Or am I being dumb here?
That is the ideal, but the reality is that life experiences shape your decisions. Let's take two justices deciding say a gun control case. One, a avid hunter from Montana, the other born and raised NYC. They are sworn to be fair, but the gun owner might better understand the importance of the 2nd amendment.
| 402 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 1:15:41pm |
re: #374 Walter L. Newton
Obama keeps telling us it's not about race. Yes, it is a lot about race. That term has become a mantra from the left to make conservatives feel bad about the past race relations in this country. Well, yes, we do have things to own up to when it comes to past race relations.
But, using a term like "it's not about race" and badgering us with it over and over, and then at the same time making decisions, making appointments and making laws that IS ABOUT RACE, is ludicrous.
It's sleight of hand. It's trying to make us walk on ice in regards to racial issues, when at the same time, they use race as bargaining chip, a tactic, a way to play favorites.
No, I'm not going to support a judge that can make statement like that and at the same time the left is telling me I have to ignore statements like that.
I'm a magician myself, you can't fool me like that.
I'm quoting you, just so everybody reads that comment again.
| 403 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:16:11pm |
re: #400 Occasional Reader
Should I be downright worried about the fact that I actually seem to understand how you think?
Seek help.
| 405 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:16:36pm |
re: #399 Dianna
Real Aztecs would be even more worrisome!
Nah, they had ceremonial warfare.
Not part of my heritage.
/although the neighborhood BBQs would be interesting
| 406 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:16:39pm |
| 407 |
medaura18586 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:16:48pm |
re: #114 Charles
I suspect if you reverse it, a lot of the people who are yelling about the statement would actually agree with it.
Example: in a case alleging "reverse discrimination," in which a white male was denied a job in favor of a Latin candidate, if a judge said "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."
How many people would agree with that?
Certainly not me.
Really, I don't see what "empathy" has got to do with it. Cases involving racial/sexist discrimination that make it to the Supreme Court (or to any court whatever) tend to involve hard evidence by means of which the plaintiff hopes to make his/her case. Belonging to the same sex, race, or class as the supposedly wronged party has no bearing to the validity of the evidence. It ought to speak for itself.
This goes for old-fashioned racism and misogyny, as well as for reverse racism or reverse misogyny, or whatever one is supposed to call them.
| 408 |
kansas Tue, May 26, 2009 1:16:54pm |
re: #401 avanti
That is the ideal, but the reality is that life experiences shape your decisions. Let's take two justices deciding say a gun control case. One, a avid hunter from Montana, the other born and raised NYC. They are sworn to be fair, but the gun owner might better understand the importance of the 2nd amendment.
Which one is the gun owner?
| 409 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:16:57pm |
re: #401 avanti
That is the ideal, but the reality is that life experiences shape your decisions. Let's take two justices deciding say a gun control case. One, a avid hunter from Montana, the other born and raised NYC. They are sworn to be fair, but the gun owner might better understand the importance of the 2nd amendment.
But that is what high school, college, law school, and clerking is for. So maybe, just maybe, the LAW will be based on the LAW.
| 410 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:17:18pm |
re: #402 zombie
I'm quoting you, just so everybody reads that comment again.
Thanks. (did you correct my grammar?) :)
| 411 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:17:21pm |
re: #399 Dianna
Real Aztecs would be even more worrisome!
"As the first Aztec nominee for the Supreme Court, I believe that one should always have a heart in deciding cases. Better still, several hearts, that were cut out of the chests of your still-living captives."
| 412 |
Empire1 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:17:32pm |
re: #24 Nevergiveup
2 problems
1) drug testing
2) narcotics make me want to throw up
If they just make you want to, you're ahead of me; they make me violently upchuck, followed by an hour or so of dry heaves. No, thanks!
| 413 |
The Shadow Do Tue, May 26, 2009 1:17:38pm |
Jeff Sessions
Ranking Member, R-Alabama
Orrin G. Hatch
R-Utah
Charles E. Grassley
R-Iowa
Jon Kyl
R-Arizona
Lindsey Graham
R-South Carolina
John Cornyn
R-Texas
Tom Coburn
R-Oklahoma
I don't think any of these guys are ready to die on this hill. Toss out a few soft ball question and recommend confirmation. Dispose of this as quickly as possible.
Or will the R's defer to their customary stupid party position and make a show of it? God, I hope not. Confirm and move on. Nothing to win and lots to lose in this fight, including the Hispanic vote for next 100 years. That is just the way it is. The One won. Suffer on, suffer on.
| 414 |
Phil. Tue, May 26, 2009 1:17:52pm |
I must say, watching the news today, and Sotomayor insisting that she wasn't an activist judge, that the Right has not only won, but destroyed the Left in the political arena of ideas regarding judicial philosophy.
Now will Sotomayor actually interpret the Constitution as it is written? Doubtful, but she'll have to continue insisting that she will if she wants to be approved. Even Obama can't make "I'm picking a judge based on their empathy" sound like a decent argument, let alone one to pick nominees based on. Pretty embarrassing actually.
| 415 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:18:11pm |
re: #402 zombie
I'm quoting you, just so everybody reads that comment again.
And you may use it, pass it on, whatever, with attribution, if you need it.
| 417 |
kansas Tue, May 26, 2009 1:18:22pm |
I'm going home now. I am agreeing with Walter Newton on pretty much everything he says. I think I have a fever.
| 418 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:18:23pm |
re: #401 avanti
That is the ideal, but the reality is that life experiences shape your decisions. Let's take two justices deciding say a gun control case. One, a avid hunter from Montana, the other born and raised NYC. They are sworn to be fair, but the gun owner might better understand the importance of the 2nd amendment.
The Second is not about hunting.
Anyone with a brain from NYC should be able to take a good swing at it. I'd start with anyone who rode a train with Colin Ferguson.
| 419 |
Lipo Tue, May 26, 2009 1:18:24pm |
Sotomayor has a very cavalier attitude toward judicial activism. I don't find it funny, whatsoever. I find it threatening and unconstitutional.
| 420 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:18:31pm |
I think the largest question I have about her so far is triggered precisely by her invocation of gender and ethnicity as potential elements or factors in her decision-making process.
The recognition of cultural predilections does not equate to the acknowledging of their validity; that is, recognizing barriers to clear and impartial thinking ought not to excuse us from the pursuit of the impartiality required in the interpretation of the law. We may be flawed, or even have flaws of which we are not fully aware, but this in no way diminishes the urgency of impartiality; if anything, it ought to remind us all the more strongly of the need to proceed with care.
But to flaunt the idea (and flaunt it she did) of different "ways of knowing" based in whole or in part on membership in one or another sub-group is to invite intellectual anarchy. Privileging the discourses of the Other is at least as dangerous, and certainly as wrong, as privileging the discourses of the hegemonic structure of society, if you want to put it in post-modern.
| 421 |
beens21 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:18:40pm |
On the "Hispanic" label, there are many descendants of the Spanish explorers who came to NE Texas,Nacogdoches, in 17th century with names like Flores,DeSoto,Fernandez etc who settled and married offspring of French explorers from N La., Natchitoches, and they all look like they came from Spain or France , and I have never heard them refer to themselves as Latino or Hispanic.Same with recent immigrants from Panama,Brazil Argentina and others.
| 422 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:00pm |
re: #411 Occasional Reader
"As the first Aztec nominee for the Supreme Court, I believe that one should always have a heart in deciding cases. Better still, several hearts, that were cut out of the chests of your still-living captives."
Linky to that quote?
| 423 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:02pm |
re: #334 avanti
If we did not think courts make policy, no one would pay much attention to the makeup of the court.
Let's remember that the Judicial Branch is one of three, and not one above two other branches of government.
You want to parse her comments and define 'making policy' as the effects of interpretting the law based on legal precedents and the validity / support of the legal argument supposedly without bias or non-legal external influence. Yet others see 'making policy' as in reversing injustice, reversing the wrongs done previously, and depending on all sorts of influences - experience, bias, international law and precedent to clarify.
How vague, poorly written, and ambiguous laws are interpretted and enforced does have an impact of society and business in this country. Those who are part of the process / system to do that limited function have a role to play - a role that fits in the checks and balances of our government.
If we are concerned about the 'makeup' of the court, then we have already overly politicized them beyond what they should be. We should be seeking the best legal minds who can make cogent decisions based on the case law and the arguments offered without considering external influences. Last time I looked, empathy, wasn't one of those critical skills.
| 424 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:17pm |
re: #417 kansas
I'm going home now. I am agreeing with Walter Newton on pretty much everything he says. I think I have a fever.
It happens, this will pass.
| 425 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:18pm |
re: #325 Walter L. Newton
She was upset that she spoke the truth, and guess what? Courts are not suppose to make policy. I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal court or judge. That is not the issue.
Don't you see the problem. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO MAKE POLICY.
Just because there are many cases where they DO, does not make it RIGHT.
Do you understand the distinction?
The problem with the statement that judges are not supposed to make policy is that it is a meaningless statement. Liberals think that conservative judges are making policy and conservatives think liberal judges are making policy. Making policy means for most people, a judge ruling contrary to their beliefs. Try asking your average conservative for an example of a conservative judge making policy. Or a liberal..
| 426 |
nyc redneck Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:18pm |
re: #348 Nevergiveup
Look we all have prejudices we bring to how we see things. You try to be as intellectually honest as you can and minimize them, but we are what we are. I do not like her as a nominee because I think she will be ultra liberal and legislate from the bench mixing her "empathy" with a sprinkle of law ( or the other way around depending on your point of view).
that is exactly the problem and she has basically stated her intentions to do just that.
| 427 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:24pm |
I guess Blind Justice can still be considered blind is she asks what race you are. It's not as if she's looking at you. Technically, she's still got the blinders on. /
| 428 |
debutaunt Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:45pm |
Remember the old days when people came to the US and leaped into the melting pot? No?
| 429 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:47pm |
re: #183 pink freud
Just jumping into the thread, but I want to add that she finds herself in the unique position of having one of her rulings that has been appealed to the SC being ruled upon (and possibly overturned) as she sits for confirmation.
(The Connecticut fireman case, the ruling of which should be returned by the Supremes in July.)
I think she'd have to recuse herself, wouldn't she? I thought there was a similar incident with another Justice, and they recused themselves from that case.
| 430 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:19:53pm |
| 431 |
irongrampa Tue, May 26, 2009 1:20:17pm |
re: #379 jcm
Well, I believe that way too much is being made about heritage,etc, here, haven't hardly seen anyone dig into how she interprets the law.
Just me, tho'.
| 432 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:20:18pm |
re: #413 The Shadow Do
I don't think any of these guys are ready to die on this hill.
GREAT mental image. Although I bet several will have to sit on grenades.
| 433 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:20:20pm |
The Constitution was written by white European people, so how can any non...........
//.//
| 434 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:20:45pm |
re: #428 debutaunt
Remember the old days when people came to the US and leaped into the melting pot? No?
Sotomayor was born in US territory; doesn't count.
| 435 |
J.S. Tue, May 26, 2009 1:20:48pm |
re: #402 zombie
Here's Jeffrey Toobin on Anderson Cooper's 360 program, aired May 23, 2009:
COOPER: And in the next court, what issues do you see playing out in a big way?
TOOBIN: I think race is going to be a very big issue. This court, the current court, is really looking to get rid of all racial preferences, to say that affirmative action basically is unconstitutional in all circumstances -- in school integration, in college admissions, in employment settings. And Barack Obama is on record saying, "I think there is a place for race consciousness in some places."
| 436 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 1:20:55pm |
re: #398 Russkilitlover
Better question: What kind of a bigot are you?
Minorities can't be bigots because they don't have the power. Everybody knows that. /
| 437 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:20:59pm |
re: #418 OldLineTexan
The Second is not about hunting.
Anyone with a brain from NYC should be able to take a good swing at it. I'd start with anyone who rode a train with Colin Ferguson.
Award yourself two gold stars. (The "not about hunting" line is always fun to bring out (and libs just never see it coming); and damn straight about Ferguson.)
| 438 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 1:21:01pm |
| 439 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:21:20pm |
And I don't think that the politics of the President is always a good indicator of how a Justice will rule. O'Connor was a moderate, and then there's Souter. She may end up being more moderate than we can guess- time will tell.
| 440 |
Danny Tue, May 26, 2009 1:21:42pm |
re: #370 Nevergiveup
I don't think it was brilliant. She is not the best qualified. It's a political choice to pacify his liberal base.
I think this is exactly right.
| 441 |
irongrampa Tue, May 26, 2009 1:21:52pm |
re: #401 avanti
Couldn't care less about who does or doesn't own weapons, it's about how a judge interprets the LAW.
| 442 |
zombie Tue, May 26, 2009 1:21:53pm |
re: #267 Charles
I don't think the term "white heritage" is the equivalent of "Latina heritage." One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
True. "Latino" is not actually a race -- though it is constantly and ridiculously affirmed as such by most people and even government policy (for example "Hispanic" is a category of racial classification in the US Census).
But "white" is not a race either. Everyone from Icelanders to Arabs to Hungarians to Moroccans to Kazaks to Ainu count as "white", and it's not a valid ethnic nor cultural category.
I'm just referring to the underlying assumptions beneath her statement, that "Latino" is somehow a different ethnic category unto itself (even if that assumption is biologically suspect).
| 443 |
MTF Tue, May 26, 2009 1:21:55pm |
Charles, I have no opinion one way or the other as to Judge Sotomayor's judicial qualifications, but I do not agree with your characterization of the linked VC post. It most certainly does not lead one to conclude that "in many ways" she is a stronger candidate than Judge Altio was for the Court. In fact, the post says "Judge Sotomayor is about average, or maybe a bit below average, for a federal appellate judge."
Hairsplitting aside, she seems to be a fairly mainstream choice for the court, surprisingly so from my perspective since I was expecting Leon Trotsky's long lost great granddaughter, and to those not liking her as a nominee I can only say "elections have consequences".
| 444 |
amir Tue, May 26, 2009 1:22:09pm |
re: #361 Occasional Reader
I would not agree that she has an advantage as she has stated. I think a study comparing the decisions by male versus female judges or minority versus white judges would be interpreting to see if any patterns can be detected. Since a nominee for the supreme court has acknowledged that background and gender may affect her decision, such a study is legitimate.
| 445 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:22:59pm |
re: #433 Ben Hur
The Constitution was written by white European people, so how can any non...........
//.//
And it's written in English! Therefore, only those of Anglo heritage are capable of fully understanding it.
////it's sarcasm, kids, just to be clear
| 446 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 1:23:00pm |
re: #388 Occasional Reader
I can't find fault with that quote, frankly. Yes, appellate decisions have much greater precedential value than do trial court decisions. Always been that way.
It sounded like she was approving of legislating from the bench. It did not sound like a review of the case. My opinion.
| 447 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:23:16pm |
re: #438 experiencedtraveller
Only a reactionary would label Social Studies as 'History'.
/
Historiography.
Even better.
| 448 |
debutaunt Tue, May 26, 2009 1:23:20pm |
re: #434 Guanxi88
Sotomayor was born in US territory; doesn't count.
Everyone can melt and at the same time keep traditions. Now we all have to whine about what was left behind. Just speaking generally about our melting pot and how things have changed.
| 449 |
MrSilverDragon Tue, May 26, 2009 1:23:47pm |
re: #437 Occasional Reader
Award yourself two gold stars. (The "not about hunting" line is always fun to bring out (and libs just never see it coming); and damn straight about Ferguson.)
You know, for a moment, I was wondering what the late show host had done on a train. Then my synapses caught up.
| 450 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:23:51pm |
re: #430 avanti
Walter, It's a much nicer room when we ignore each other. I'm in too good a mood for a pissing contest with you this afternoon.
Hey, I wasn't being mean, nor smart-assed with you. You made a statement and I made a comment. It was a normal response on my part.
But, jerk, this part ain't... chicken shit.
Back to your regularly scheduled comments...
| 451 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:04pm |
| 452 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:04pm |
re: #442 zombie
True. "Latino" is not actually a race -- though it is constantly and ridiculously affirmed as such by most people and even government policy (for example "Hispanic" is a category of racial classification in the US Census).
But "white" is not a race either. Everyone from Icelanders to Arabs to Hungarians to Moroccans to Kazaks to Ainu count as "white", and it's not a valid ethnic nor cultural category.
I'm just referring to the underlying assumptions beneath her statement, that "Latino" is somehow a different ethnic category unto itself (even if that assumption is biologically suspect).
BECAUSE MEMBERSHIP HAS ITS PERKS.
| 454 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:14pm |
re: #437 Occasional Reader
Award yourself two gold stars. (The "not about hunting" line is always fun to bring out (and libs just never see it coming); and damn straight about Ferguson.)
Shit, I thought I had my amendments screwed up. Make him a hunter and gun collector then. :)
| 455 |
toadbelly Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:21pm |
As far as Latina and white are concerned, Latina applies generally, when talking about people from a mixed heredity of European and Amerindian. This typically applied to people of central and south America where Spanish and Portuguese (etc) genetically mingled with native populations.
White is a catchall for almost all Europeans although it once meant WASPs and later included western Europeans, then Mediterranean, catholic, etc.
cutlure of course varies over region, race, time, multiverses, on and on.
| 456 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:23pm |
re: #360 Thanos
I think it was a brilliant pick on Obama's part, and that it will keep us R's tied up in knots for weeks. That doesn't mean I like, nor that I admire Obama.
We'll see on that. He may be expending some political capital on this one.
| 457 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:36pm |
re: #436 HelloDare
Minorities can't be bigots because they don't have the power. Everybody knows that. /
Have you ever been to the DMV?
/
| 458 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:41pm |
re: #439 Sharmuta
And I don't think that the politics of the President is always a good indicator of how a Justice will rule. O'Connor was a moderate, and then there's Souter. She may end up being more moderate than we can guess- time will tell.
We can still debate her merits, or supposed possible faults.
| 459 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:24:54pm |
re: #452 Ben Hur
BECAUSE MEMBERSHIP HAS ITS PERKS.
Especially at the New Yankee Stadium. The place abounds with private clubs, private bars, and moats.
| 460 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:04pm |
re: #448 debutaunt
Everyone can melt and at the same time keep traditions. Now we all have to whine about what was left behind. Just speaking generally about our melting pot and how things have changed.
Well, that side of things, I fear, is long-gone. Assimilation now goes the other way.
| 461 |
Phil. Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:18pm |
Flyers #425
The problem with the statement that judges are not supposed to make policy is that it is a meaningless statement. Liberals think that conservative judges are making policy and conservatives think liberal judges are making policy. Making policy means for most people, a judge ruling contrary to their beliefs. Try asking your average conservative for an example of a conservative judge making policy. Or a liberal..
FALSE. A sharp legal mind of any political stripe can interpret the Constitution. Most of the words are clear and unambiguous. When judges look for "emanations of penumbras" to find legal reasoning for their judgments, they are no longer looking to the US Constitution, but their own biases.
Your statement is legal multiculturalism masquerading as reason and logic. It is neither.
| 462 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:30pm |
re: #459 Nevergiveup
Especially at the New Yankee Stadium. The place abounds with private clubs, private bars, and moats.
Moat?
| 463 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:31pm |
re: #444 amir
Since a nominee for the supreme court has acknowledged that background and gender may affect her decision
Um... nice try. But she didn't just "acknowledge" that they "may affect" her decisions; she said they would make them "better" than those of someone of a different ethnicity and gender.
I repeat: "Better". Her word, not mine.
| 464 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:36pm |
re: #444 amir
I would not agree that she has an advantage as she has stated. I think a study comparing the decisions by male versus female judges or minority versus white judges would be interpreting to see if any patterns can be detected. Since a nominee for the supreme court has acknowledged that background and gender may affect her decision, such a study is legitimate.
And she is arguing for enough women and minorities on the bench to make a statistically significant sample, so such a study can be useful:
We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
(Back to work!)
| 465 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:50pm |
re: #454 avanti
Shit, I thought I had my amendments screwed up. Make him a hunter and gun collector then. :)
Cripes this is fun.
The Second isn't about museums, either.
/just taking a dig at ya, avanti
| 466 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:54pm |
re: #446 NelsFree
It sounded like she was approving of legislating from the bench. It did not sound like a review of the case. My opinion.
When it comes to issues of a political nature, i.e., abortion, etc.., all judges legislate from the bench once they reach the circuit level. If the judge rules how you wish, then its following the constitution. Otherwise, it is legislating from the bench.
| 467 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:25:57pm |
re: #453 brookly red
/OMG she's from the Bronx...
So, whata' da matta wit dat! My's aunt and cousin's lives in da Bronx.
/
| 468 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:26:10pm |
re: #325 Walter L. Newton
She was upset that she spoke the truth, and guess what? Courts are not suppose to make policy. I don't care if it's a conservative or liberal court or judge. That is not the issue.
Don't you see the problem. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO MAKE POLICY.
Just because there are many cases where they DO, does not make it RIGHT.
Do you understand the distinction?
Exactly - in that clip she's talking to a sympathetic audience, telling them what they already know. It's incredibly brazen, and unfortunately won't make much of a difference. What a horrible pick. And, on the 48 hour rule, she's been bandied about as a choice since Souter retired, so it's way beyond 48 hours.
| 469 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 1:26:28pm |
re: #413 The Shadow Do
I don't disagree with you at this point - and think that it will be 68-32 or 70-30 when it goes to the floor. I have concerns over her positions and nomination - but Obama won the Presidency. It would be hypocritical of us to complain about Bork / Thomas and others and then use those same tactics.
But -
Nothing to win and lots to lose in this fight, including the Hispanic vote for next 100 years.
The GOP didn't get the Hispanic vote even though McCain was the one of the leaders for amnesty.....nor did they get the Hispanic vote as the Dems fillibustered / killed Estrada's nomination. Rather than worry about this special interest group or that (other than tossing the fringe elements from the party) - it would be a whole lot better if the GOP focused on doing the right thing and articulating to the people why its the right thing.
| 470 |
spudly Tue, May 26, 2009 1:26:38pm |
re: #436 HelloDare
Minorities can't be bigots because they don't have the power. Everybody knows that. /
That's gonna be interesting here in NM in a handful of years when people with Spanish surnames are in the majority. Right now, Spanish surnames are certainly the plurality here in NM. Odd that having a spanish surname makes one a "minority," while having, say, a French surname, does not.
That's part of the bogus nature of "latino/latina" as recognized "minorities." The melting pot is a far better way to go than this balkanized "multiculturalism" nonsense. I maintain that any two Americans (raised here, not new arrivals) have far more in common that either have with someone from any other country. That's GOOD. That's great, in fact. That's the answer to the spread of Islam, for example. They need to "melt" into our country with its secular government, and pluralistic lifestyle or not come here.
Melting pot FTW.
| 471 |
Jack Burton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:26:42pm |
re: #94 taxfreekiller
The current RINO invested Republican party will vote her in, the vote will be 70 to 30 .
If she's qualified, it should be 100 to 0. "I don't like her politics" isn't part of advise and consent reasons for voting against confirmation.
Even the queen of liberal judges Ruth Bader Ginsberg was approved 96 to 3.
| 472 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:26:45pm |
re: #453 brookly red
/OMG she's from the Bronx...
Were anyway. They keep saying housing projects, but there are nice places in the Bronks.
| 474 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 1:26:54pm |
re: #454 avanti
Shit, I thought I had my amendments screwed up. Make him a hunter and gun collector then. :)
Still not the reason for the 2nd.
| 475 |
crimeshark Tue, May 26, 2009 1:27:09pm |
She's from our circuit. Based on what we've seen of her in court, the consensus in my office seems to be that she's a space cadet with a really big chip on her shoulder. She doesn't listen to oral argument, doesn't give anyone a chance to speak, doesn't listen to the other judges, frequently seems to miss the point being argued in its entirely and her decisions, well- stink. What's not to like?
| 477 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 1:27:16pm |
| 478 |
sphincter Tue, May 26, 2009 1:27:30pm |
Debate her merits, debate her failures, it will matter not at all.
She's going to be confirmed. This should not be a surprise.
Get used to it folks.
| 479 |
amir Tue, May 26, 2009 1:27:35pm |
re: #463 Occasional Reader
The first sentence of my comment was that I didn't agree with her. I used the word advantage rather than better.
| 480 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:27:40pm |
re: #458 Walter L. Newton
We can still debate her merits, or supposed possible faults.
Did I say we couldn't?
| 481 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:27:42pm |
re: #462 Ben Hur
Moat?
Yeah. Around the really expensive seats behind home plate and down the 2 lines. I hear they might install machine guns next?
| 482 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:28:51pm |
| 483 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:28:58pm |
re: #441 irongrampa
Couldn't care less about who does or doesn't own weapons, it's about how a judge interprets the LAW.
Look, we are not arguing that, but how many of us can make decisions totally isolated from our life experiences ? Judges are humans, not robots, and that's why liberals and conservatives look at the same law differently.
| 484 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 1:29:56pm |
re: #398 Russkilitlover
Better question: What kind of a bigot are you?
I have a blanket hatred for most NY/NJ politicians.
Besides that I'm pretty much a live and let live sort of upright, bipedal motopithecus.
| 485 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 1:30:06pm |
re: #475 crimeshark
She's from our circuit. Based on what we've seen of her in court, the consensus in my office seems to be that she's a space cadet with a really big chip on her shoulder. She doesn't listen to oral argument, doesn't give anyone a chance to speak, doesn't listen to the other judges, frequently seems to miss the point being argued in its entirely and her decisions, well- stink. What's not to like?
Wow, why do you hate Latina's?
/
| 486 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:30:12pm |
re: #397 zombie
Yes.
Why does a judge's ethnic heritage have any relevance whatsoever?
For a "post-racial" president, Obama seems intent on keeping race the #1 hot-button issue. "Disappointing" doesn't even begin to describe my feelings about what Obama has done on this issue.
NBC is already asking "do the Republicans dare oppose a hispanic nominee?" It's disgusting. The dems went after Miguel Estrada tooth and nail, and nobody blinked, did they?
| 487 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:30:30pm |
re: #461 Phil.
Flyers #425
FALSE. A sharp legal mind of any political stripe can interpret the Constitution. Most of the words are clear and unambiguous. When judges look for "emanations of penumbras" to find legal reasoning for their judgments, they are no longer looking to the US Constitution, but their own biases.Your statement is legal multiculturalism masquerading as reason and logic. It is neither.
"Emanations of penumbras" is an obvious example of judicial legislation. Let's take freedom of speech. Plain simple words. Can you define what these words mean in every situation? How do these words apply to political speech? Commercial speech? Speech where one yells "fire" in a theatre? The constitution does not define "freedom of speech." Judges had to interpret this. And that interpreting was based upon their philosophy.
| 488 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:30:39pm |
re: #481 Nevergiveup
Yeah. Around the really expensive seats behind home plate and down the 2 lines. I hear they might install machine guns next?
I hear that some New Yorkers are thinking of traveling to Baltimore to see ball games, since it would be cheaper than going to Yankee Stadium.
| 489 |
Son of the Black Dog Tue, May 26, 2009 1:30:44pm |
re: #374 Walter L. Newton
Obama keeps telling us it's not about race. Yes, it is a lot about race. That term has become a mantra from the left to make conservatives feel bad about the past race relations in this country. Well, yes, we do have things to own up to when it comes to past race relations.
...
Except that the overwhelming majority of the racists in our past were Democrats. Those were Democrats standing in the schoolhouse doors to prevent school integration. Eisenhower was the president who sent the 101st to Little Rock. Every pro-segregation politician I can remember from growing up in the 1950's and 1960's was a Democrat.
The important pieces of civil rights legislation were passed only because they were supported by Republicans. A majority of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
It isn't the Republicans in particular, or conservatives in general, who have to answer for America's past of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. It is the Democrats.
| 490 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 1:31:39pm |
re: #443 MTF
Charles, I have no opinion one way or the other as to Judge Sotomayor's judicial qualifications, but I do not agree with your characterization of the linked VC post. It most certainly does not lead one to conclude that "in many ways" she is a stronger candidate than Judge Altio was for the Court.
I wrote that because in many (not all) of the metrics cited by Posner, Sotomayor comes out ahead of Alito.
| 491 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:32:15pm |
re: #465 OldLineTexan
Cripes this is fun.
The Second isn't about museums, either.
/just taking a dig at ya, avanti
Ah, you're not the first.:) I actually did check the 2nd again, thought I was finally showing my age and messed it up.
| 493 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:32:38pm |
re: #489 Son of the Black Dog
Except that the overwhelming majority of the racists in our past were Democrats. Those were Democrats standing in the schoolhouse doors to prevent school integration. Eisenhower was the president who sent the 101st to Little Rock. Every pro-segregation politician I can remember from growing up in the 1950's and 1960's was a Democrat.
The important pieces of civil rights legislation were passed only because they were supported by Republicans. A majority of Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
It isn't the Republicans in particular, or conservatives in general, who have to answer for America's past of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation. It is the Democrats.
Were those democrats liberal or conservative?
| 494 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:33:03pm |
re: #483 avanti
Look, we are not arguing that, but how many of us can make decisions totally isolated from our life experiences ? Judges are humans, not robots, and that's why liberals and conservatives look at the same law differently.
No, it's because of ideology that enables them to look at laws differently. I can be a straight, womanizing, female loving slob and still vote for a gay marriage amendment if I see that the constitution gives that freedom.
My life experience in that case has nothing to do with it, I'm judging concepts and principles and laws, not feelings.
That's the difference between conservatives and liberal, just because it feels good, doesn't mean it should be law.
Of course, you won't rebut this comment.
| 495 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:33:11pm |
re: #470 spudly
The melting pot is a far better way to go than this balkanized "multiculturalism" nonsense.
Yugoslavia in general, and Bosnia in particular, celebrated diversity and multiculturalism. What's to worry about?
//
| 496 |
The Shadow Do Tue, May 26, 2009 1:33:20pm |
re: #432 OldLineTexan
GREAT mental image. Although I bet several will have to sit on grenades.
LOL! Had a flashback to Anita right there.
| 497 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:33:30pm |
re: #485 HelloDare
Wow, why do you hate Latina's?
/
I think I can sleep easy, knowing that nobody at LGF can accuse me of that particular sin.
| 498 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:33:32pm |
re: #486 tedzilla99
NBC is already asking "do the Republicans dare oppose a hispanic nominee?" It's disgusting. The dems went after Miguel Estrada tooth and nail, and nobody blinked, did they?
It's not about race, dammit!
/
| 499 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 1:33:47pm |
re: #482 Walter L. Newton
My fruit cup is bigger than Avanti's... neaner, neaner...
I told you not to use your bowler hat for fruit cup! Hold out your hand...
*smack*
| 500 |
Athos Tue, May 26, 2009 1:33:56pm |
re: #483 avanti
Look, we are not arguing that, but how many of us can make decisions totally isolated from our life experiences ? Judges are humans, not robots, and that's why liberals and conservatives look at the same law differently.
Perhaps the difference is because a judge should not be using life experiences outside of the legal realm for making their decisions as opposed to allowing those experiences influence the decision.
Which is more trustworthy as a journalist? One who entered the profession to capture the first draft of history or the one who wanted to change and influence the world.
In a judge, it should be immaterial if they grew up in a Bronx housing project or an Orange County, CA bedroom suburb in how they interpret the law based on the case that is presented. But if one sees a need to right past injustices......
| 501 |
Lokotes Tue, May 26, 2009 1:34:09pm |
It's pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?
| 502 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 1:34:18pm |
re: #497 Occasional Reader
I think I can sleep easy, knowing that nobody at LGF can accuse me of that particular sin.
Well, up until she married that soccer player.
/ducks
| 504 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:34:29pm |
re: #488 Occasional Reader
I hear that some New Yorkers are thinking of traveling to Baltimore to see ball games, since it would be cheaper than going to Yankee Stadium.
Yes. you can go on stub hub and take the family to Baltimore for a few days. People do that. But you can also go on Stub hub and get the seats at Yankee Stadium cheap now also. I went once so far. I bought to seats on stub hub. they were $50 seats for $15. If you wait till 2-3 hours before game time, the prices plummet.
| 505 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 1:34:41pm |
re: #490 Charles
I wrote that because in many (not all) of the metrics cited by Posner, Sotomayor comes out ahead of Alito.
Marginally, at best, Charles. Of the three Posner mentioned, Wood comes out head and shoulders above both of them.
I think Obama is making a mistake picking Sotomayor instead of Wood based on the metrics used.
| 506 |
irongrampa Tue, May 26, 2009 1:34:58pm |
re: #483 avanti
If you're a judge, then you damn well better realize that predjudice CAN affect a decision, and use that knowledge accordingly.
And your own should be the first considered.
| 507 |
Phil. Tue, May 26, 2009 1:35:03pm |
re: #493 Flyers1974
Were those democrats liberal or conservative?
Were they Democrats or were they not Democrats?
| 508 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:35:09pm |
re: #505 Honorary Yooper
Marginally, at best, Charles. Of the three Posner mentioned, Wood comes out head and shoulders above both of them.
I think Obama is making a mistake picking Sotomayor instead of Wood based on the metrics used.
What is this, SCOTUS bracketology?
| 509 |
NelsFree Tue, May 26, 2009 1:35:15pm |
re: #495 Guanxi88
Yugoslavia in general, and Bosnia in particular, celebrated diversity and multiculturalism. What's to worry about?
//
Assimilation and Diversity are antonyms.
BBL
| 510 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:35:17pm |
| 513 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:36:42pm |
re: #375 lawhawk
Actually, I don't see it doing anything of the kind. This is actually a pretty cut and dried confirmation process. She's not a complete unknown, there are reversals (4) and some statements on the record that she'll have to address. She'll do the usual nominee bob and weave - avoiding answering the questions posed by Senators who would much rather hear themselves than ask real questions, and she'll be confirmed by a 70-30 margin.
Sound and fury, signifying not much.
That said, this will provide the summer entertainment in DC since Congress will generally be out of session and there isn't much else for the political class to do.
I'm skipping around the thread, but is this correct? 4 reversals and not the 80% I saw earlier?
| 514 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:37:15pm |
re: #501 Lokotes
It's pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?
Hey, this follows on the election of the first POTUS (I know of) who explicitly promised to "slow the development of new weapons systems" for our military, so why the heck not?!
| 515 |
beens21 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:37:28pm |
Actually, after looking at the Ricci case, I have concluded that she is a lightweight compared to Scalia,Roberts, Alito and Thomas.She will get the seat and then about a week before she is sworn in, she will get ass-kicked with a
6-3
reversal in Ricci with a blistering opinion delivered by Thomas, and she will then vote like Souter voted and be about as effective as Souter. She won't be the mental giant who can go toe to toe with Scalia or Roberts. But that's the short term view.
| 516 |
Truck Monkey Tue, May 26, 2009 1:37:41pm |
re: #472 Nevergiveup
Were anyway. They keep saying housing projects, but there are nice places in the Bronks.
Some ah dem even have their own terlets!
| 517 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 1:37:57pm |
re: #513 Sharmuta
I'm skipping around the thread, but is this correct? 4 reversals and not the 80% I saw earlier?
That 80% figure is a distortion, probably floated deliberately to smear Sotomayor.
| 518 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 1:38:14pm |
| 521 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 1:38:26pm |
re: #488 Occasional Reader
I hear that some New Yorkers are thinking of traveling to Baltimore to see ball games, since it would be cheaper than going to Yankee Stadium.
They could come up to Boston, but they'd have to hide their (damn) Yankees logos.
/On second thought,
| 522 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:38:28pm |
re: #506 irongrampa
If you're a judge, then you damn well better realize that predjudice CAN affect a decision, and use that knowledge accordingly.
And your own should be the first considered.
Of course predjudice affects decisions. Judges on the SC should consider where their prejudices lie and then vote as their prejudices dictate. Despite belonging to the judicial branch, the SC always legislated, always will. Not sure it could be different.
| 523 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 1:38:33pm |
re: #513 Sharmuta
I'm skipping around the thread, but is this correct? 4 reversals and not the 80% I saw earlier?
Four out of eleven, IIRC, from what I've seen. That's only 36.4%, hardly the 80% or 100% quoted by the nuts out there (Free Republic, I'm looking at you).
| 524 |
The Shadow Do Tue, May 26, 2009 1:38:36pm |
re: #469 Athos
The GOP didn't get the Hispanic vote even though McCain was the one of the leaders for amnesty.....nor did they get the Hispanic vote as the Dems fillibustered / killed Estrada's nomination. Rather than worry about this special interest group or that (other than tossing the fringe elements from the party) - it would be a whole lot better if the GOP focused on doing the right thing and articulating to the people why its the right thing.
I agree with that, however there is a difference between pandering for a group and alienating an entire population, which this would have the potential to do.
| 525 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:12pm |
re: #518 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Such a dissapointing movie.
Yet we have to watch it everytime is comes on.
| 526 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:13pm |
re: #523 Honorary Yooper
Four out of eleven, IIRC, from what I've seen. That's only 36.4%, hardly the 80% or 100% quoted by the nuts out there (Free Republic, I'm looking at you).
Thanks.
| 527 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:15pm |
Hey, no problem. Sotomayor can just recuse herself when any cases come up that involve race. How many of those cases can there be?
/
| 528 |
lawhawk Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:50pm |
re: #515 beens21
She'd have to recuse herself in Ricci. It would likely be a 6-2 decision.
| 529 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:52pm |
re: #521 Kosh's Shadow
They could come up to Boston, but they'd have to hide their (damn) Yankees logos.
/On second thought,
They do go and the smart ones do hide their logos. I hear there were alot of Met Fans up there last weekend?
| 530 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:39:55pm |
| 531 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:40:14pm |
re: #490 Charles
I wrote that because in many (not all) of the metrics cited by Posner, Sotomayor comes out ahead of Alito.
But in the bottom half.
Posner:
Wood ranked eighth; Alito sixteenth. Sotomayor would be in the bottom half. However, I would not put too much weight on this conclusion. Choi and Gulati intended their composite ranking as an experiment to provoke discussion on how best to evaluate and rank judges.
| 532 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 1:40:20pm |
So, on a different topic: following a weekend which saw Iran's navy deploy itself into the Gulf, and Little Kimmy detonate a full-fledged nuclear bomb while simultaneously performing missile tests in Japan's general direction...where the hell is our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Shouldn't she be out there, front and center, addressing these issues? And if she's been kidnapped by aliens, or raptured, or consigned to a closet somewhere by her boss, shouldn't the nation have heard about it?
Her absence is both odd and disturbing. Not that I miss her. Just that it's becoming questionable whether the US has any coherent foreign policy at all.
| 534 |
Truck Monkey Tue, May 26, 2009 1:40:33pm |
re: #488 Occasional Reader
I hear that some New Yorkers are thinking of traveling to Baltimore to see ball games, since it would be cheaper than going to Yankee Stadium.
That would assume that Baltimore actually has a team worth watching. Indications are that this is not the case.
| 535 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:40:34pm |
re: #506 irongrampa
If you're a judge, then you damn well better realize that predjudice CAN affect a decision, and use that knowledge accordingly.
And your own should be the first considered.
I agree. It just occurred to me how hard that would be for some. i.e. you would not want me judging a porn case if you were against it, I likes my porn.
| 536 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 1:41:02pm |
re: #501 Lokotes
It's pretty amazing. Have we ever had a Supreme Court justice before who stated quite frankly that he or she is incapable of being objective?
That's an exaggeration, sorry. The point of the speech is that cultural heritage and life experiences may affect judicial decisions. Not that they always will. And in fact she said very clearly that those factors do not always affect decisions.
Another quote from the speech comes to mind:
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give.
| 537 |
Dave the..... Tue, May 26, 2009 1:41:18pm |
This is a similiar situation to Ruth "ACLU" Ginsberg in 1993. Republicans were in no position to fight it, so she got approved 96-3.
Probably same thing here. Unless there is a nasty smoking gun, she'll get approved.
NRO is saying she is anti-business, but doesn't link to specific cases.
| 538 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:41:24pm |
re: #507 Phil.
Were they Democrats or were they not Democrats?
If they identified themselves as Democrats and belonged to the Democratic Party, they were unquestionably Democrats. Not sure this is a matter in dispute. Why not answer my question though, since neither of us are political operatives. Were those democrats liberal or conservative?
| 539 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:41:34pm |
re: #534 Truck Monkey
That would assume that Baltimore actually has a team worth watching. Indications are that this is not the case.
That is why the tickets are so available?
| 540 |
yankeebaseball Tue, May 26, 2009 1:41:49pm |
Lets be honest folks.
Just another lib who considers the Constitution their own personal toilet bowl.
Obama could nominate a block of wood and the GOP could do nothing to stop it.
| 541 |
Preposter S Tue, May 26, 2009 1:41:53pm |
Obama chose a woman in poor health who will be very challenged to serve more than 10-15 years. A heart condition and diabetes is a bad combination. She is just as left as she can be, not likely to charm her fellow justices around her opinions and what law she does write will come back at the court time and again: I am told her opinions were reversed 80% of the time- this means her legal reasoning is poor and will result in additional caseload for the court when the lower courts send up cases to figure what the heck she meant in her opinion.
| 542 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 1:42:00pm |
re: #525 Ben Hur
Yet we have to watch it everytime is comes on.
Unfortunately yes. They could have at least used the right song for the movie.
| 543 |
capitalist piglet Tue, May 26, 2009 1:42:10pm |
re: #535 avanti
I agree. It just occurred to me how hard that would be for some. i.e. you would not want me judging a porn case if you were against it, I likes my porn.
Too Much freaking I, avanti.
| 544 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:42:45pm |
re: #540 yankeebaseball
Lets be honest folks.
Just another lib who considers the Constitution their own personal toilet bowl.
Obama could nominate a block of wood and the GOP could do nothing to stop it.
He can't, the block of wood is VP isn't he?
| 545 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:42:52pm |
re: #523 Honorary Yooper
Four out of eleven, IIRC, from what I've seen. That's only 36.4%, hardly the 80% or 100% quoted by the nuts out there (Free Republic, I'm looking at you).
Hot Air had 4 cases in 11 Years on the bench.
| 546 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:43:14pm |
re: #543 capitalist piglet
Too Much freaking I, avanti.
Wanna know the worst part? Avanti goes in for the Alan Alda stuff; really twisted, from what I read.
| 547 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 1:43:28pm |
| 548 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 1:43:34pm |
re: #532 SixDegrees
So, on a different topic: following a weekend which saw Iran's navy deploy itself into the Gulf, and Little Kimmy detonate a full-fledged nuclear bomb while simultaneously performing missile tests in Japan's general direction...where the hell is our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Shouldn't she be out there, front and center, addressing these issues? And if she's been kidnapped by aliens, or raptured, or consigned to a closet somewhere by her boss, shouldn't the nation have heard about it?
Her absence is both odd and disturbing. Not that I miss her. Just that it's becoming questionable whether the US has any coherent foreign policy at all.
The aliens are still working on her. Her pod isn't quite ready, so they can't let her out.
//////
| 550 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:43:54pm |
re: #517 Charles
That 80% figure is a distortion, probably floated deliberately to smear Sotomayor.
It is based on how many times SCOTUS justices voted not to uphold her opinions when they were before the court. She has only received 11 out of 44. It isn't a reversal rate, yet a tally of justices agreeing with her ruling(s).
| 551 |
capitalist piglet Tue, May 26, 2009 1:44:09pm |
re: #546 Guanxi88
Wanna know the worst part? Avanti goes in for the Alan Alda stuff; really twisted, from what I read.
Not really, thanks.
| 553 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 1:44:40pm |
re: #550 loppyd
It is based on how many times SCOTUS justices voted not to uphold her opinions when they were before the court. She has only received 11 out of 44. It isn't a reversal rate, yet a tally of justices agreeing with her ruling(s).
In other words, it's a distortion.
| 554 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:44:40pm |
re: #551 capitalist piglet
You read it; you can't un-read it.
| 555 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:44:45pm |
re: #503 avanti
With a assault rifle and armor piercing ammo and a Ron Paul bumper sticker.
"Assault weapon" is what you're after ... it's the term the Loony Libs coined for scary legal guns. It can be anything a lawmaker lobbyist wants it to be.
"Assault rifle" is a selective-fire weapon in a rifle caliber. The term was invented by the Germans.
The US M4 carbine is an assault rifle. My AR-15, which shares some parts but has no automatic capability, is an "assault weapon".
Almost any "major" rifle caliber will pierce body armor most effectively. "Armor-piercing" ammo is another boogeyman created by anti-rights enthusiasts, although the quest for it has been taken up with great glee by ignorant KKKers and others once the pot was stirred. Way to go, Josh Sugarmann.
Ron Paul. Well, he's Texas' fault, there are no two ways around that.
| 556 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 1:44:59pm |
re: #546 Guanxi88
Wanna know the worst part? Avanti goes in for the Alan Alda stuff; really twisted, from what I read.
At a friend's stag party, his brother showed the porn movie "Nurses of the 407'th". It was pretty dumb and bad. I would have preferred "Flesh Gordon".
| 557 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:44:59pm |
I've read 4 out of 5 by the SCOTUS which is 80%.
| 558 |
HelloDare Tue, May 26, 2009 1:45:00pm |
| 559 |
debutaunt Tue, May 26, 2009 1:45:03pm |
re: #541 Preposter S
Obama chose a woman in poor health who will be very challenged to serve more than 10-15 years. A heart condition and diabetes is a bad combination. She is just as left as she can be, not likely to charm her fellow justices around her opinions and what law she does write will come back at the court time and again: I am told her opinions were reversed 80% of the time- this means her legal reasoning is poor and will result in additional caseload for the court when the lower courts send up cases to figure what the heck she meant in her opinion.
Links?
| 560 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:45:19pm |
re: #553 Charles
In other words, it's a distortion.
Call it what you want, but it's not a stellar record.
| 561 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 1:45:31pm |
re: #541 Preposter S
She may not be a good choice, but the 80% number is bogus from what I've seen. It is little more than a smear. If you want to do some serious comparing, check out the Posner article. It looks like Diane Wood would make a stronger candidate for the SCOTUS than Sonia Sotomayor based on the metrics he used. I think Obama is making a mistake here, not choosing who appears to be the best of the group, regardless of ideology.
| 562 |
MTF Tue, May 26, 2009 1:45:34pm |
I like to take the "thought experiment" route of substituting other words for the words in question. How does "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman who hasn't lived that life" sound? Pretty awful, by modern standards.
| 563 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 1:45:38pm |
Myths iz reality and everything iz racist!
| 565 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 1:45:48pm |
re: #533 Iron Fist
Thanks for that. Little Jimmy Madison is awesome.
| 566 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:46:14pm |
re: #536 Charles
That's an exaggeration, sorry. The point of the speech is that cultural heritage and life experiences may affect judicial decisions. Not that they always will. And in fact she said very clearly that those factors do not always affect decisions.
And every judge should strive to make sure cultural heritage and life experiences doesn't effect their decisions. The only experiences that should play into decisions should be judicial experiences.
| 567 |
Truck Monkey Tue, May 26, 2009 1:46:25pm |
re: #539 Nevergiveup
That is why the tickets are so available?
Sad really. They are rivals to the Nationals for who can be the most pathetic. Angelos has ruined the team. Best stadium in all of baseball and you can't give the seats away.
| 568 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:46:29pm |
re: #546 Guanxi88
Wanna know the worst part? Avanti goes in for the Alan Alda stuff; really twisted, from what I read.
I take back my porn comment if the case involves "Two girls, one cup"
| 569 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 1:46:36pm |
re: #545 avanti
Hot Air had 4 cases in 11 Years on the bench.
Four cases in eleven years? Then the percentage is probably even lower, maybe even below 5%.
| 571 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:46:45pm |
Does anyone know where in the Bronx she grew up?
| 573 |
beens21 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:46:54pm |
re: #528 lawhawk
wouldn't Souter still vote?,I said before she was sworn in.
| 575 |
Preposter S Tue, May 26, 2009 1:47:06pm |
re: #545 avanti
36% is still a VERY high reversal rate. Most judges hate being reversed. You can be a good judge and a liberal. To get this high a reverse rate means her opinions have the extra something special that forces appeals courts to clerks to work late into the night drafting opinions to correct gross errors of law.
| 576 |
Phil. Tue, May 26, 2009 1:47:07pm |
re: #536 Charles
That's an exaggeration, sorry. The point of the speech is that cultural heritage and life experiences may affect judicial decisions. Not that they always will. And in fact she said very clearly that those factors do not always affect decisions.
But should they ever affect decisions? And the answer is no.
| 577 |
Guanxi88 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:47:09pm |
re: #556 Kosh's Shadow
At a friend's stag party, his brother showed the porn movie "Nurses of the 407'th". It was pretty dumb and bad. I would have preferred "Flesh Gordon".
I tell you the truth, I think the producers have just gotten lazy; no story lines, not even clever titles any more.
| 578 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:47:44pm |
re: #557 tedzilla99
I've read 4 out of 5 by the SCOTUS which is 80%.
If only 5 of her opinions for the 2nd circuit reached the SCOTUS then that is correct.
I am trying to find out how many cases where she wrote the opinion for the lower court were granted cert by SCOTUS and then look at each case to see if it was reversed or upheld.
| 580 |
pink freud Tue, May 26, 2009 1:47:51pm |
re: #429 Sharmuta
I think she'd have to recuse herself, wouldn't she? I thought there was a similar incident with another Justice, and they recused themselves from that case.
The case has already been heard by the Supremes, Sharm, and is awaiting a ruling (which should be announced early July, I believe). They will be either upholding or reversing her appellate decision. The sticky point here is that the Supremes' ruling may come down in the time period during which she is undergoing the Senate confirmation process. Could get real interesting, especially if they overturn her ruling ...
| 581 |
Truck Monkey Tue, May 26, 2009 1:48:14pm |
re: #556 Kosh's Shadow
At a friend's stag party, his brother showed the porn movie "Nurses of the 407'th". It was pretty dumb and bad. I would have preferred "Flesh Gordon".
Or Saving Ryans Privates.
| 582 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:48:36pm |
re: #580 pink freud
Thanks, Pink. Trying to play catch-up here.
| 583 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:49:56pm |
re: #580 pink freud
The case has already been heard by the Supremes, Sharm, and is awaiting a ruling (which should be announced early July, I believe). They will be either upholding or reversing her appellate decision. The sticky point here is that the Supremes' ruling may come down in the time period during which she is undergoing the Senate confirmation process. Could get real interesting, especially if they overturn her ruling ...
Anecdotal accounts of the questioning by the Justices during oral arguments lead legal analysts to believe that she will be overturned.
| 584 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:50:03pm |
| 585 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:50:07pm |
Here you go - it's 5 of 6 reversed with a seventh pending:
[Link: www.cnn.com...]
| 587 |
avanti Tue, May 26, 2009 1:50:40pm |
re: #569 Honorary Yooper
Four cases in eleven years? Then the percentage is probably even lower, maybe even below 5%.
There may be more, but that's all they had information on. (from judicial watch ?)
| 588 |
pink freud Tue, May 26, 2009 1:50:41pm |
re: #582 Sharmuta
Thanks, Pink. Trying to play catch-up here.
Me too, Sharm. Running about a hundred comments behind. :)
| 589 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 1:51:05pm |
re: #555 OldLineTexan
"Assault weapon" is what you're after ... it's the term the Loony Libs coined for scary legal guns. It can be anything a
lawmakerlobbyist wants it to be."Assault rifle" is a selective-fire weapon in a rifle caliber. The term was invented by the Germans.
The US M4 carbine is an assault rifle. My AR-15, which shares some parts but has no automatic capability, is an "assault weapon".
Almost any "major" rifle caliber will pierce body armor most effectively. "Armor-piercing" ammo is another boogeyman created by anti-rights enthusiasts, although the quest for it has been taken up with great glee by ignorant KKKers and others once the pot was stirred. Way to go, Josh Sugarmann.
Ron Paul. Well, he's Texas' fault, there are no two ways around that.
Under the AWB,
This rifle is okay.
This is not.
Both are Springfield M1/14. Functionally they are identical.
| 591 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:51:22pm |
re: #585 tedzilla99
Here you go - it's 5 of 6 reversed with a seventh pending:
The one case where she was not reversed:
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
| 592 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:51:25pm |
re: #585 tedzilla99
Here you go - it's 5 of 6 reversed with a seventh pending:
But that's a bias source. It can't be true.
/////
| 594 |
slokat Tue, May 26, 2009 1:51:42pm |
Re: Judicial Activism - or - Making Policy
Reference: Constitution Article III, section 2
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Which in fact gives the SC the limited right to change/modify/reverse law, or as is more usually the case set policy on how the law is implemented.
| 596 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:52:12pm |
re: #585 tedzilla99
Here you go - it's 5 of 6 reversed with a seventh pending:
I'm no math wizard, but I'd say that is more than 80%.
| 597 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 1:52:13pm |
| 598 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 1:52:17pm |
re: #581 Truck Monkey
Or Saving Ryans Privates.
Field of Reams
Schindler's Fist
A Tale of Two Titties
| 599 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 1:52:17pm |
re: #563 Killgore Trout
Myths iz reality and everything iz racist!
A lot is with the Obama administration. That's for bring that up.
| 600 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 1:52:43pm |
re: #585 tedzilla99
Here you go - it's 5 of 6 reversed with a seventh pending:
CNN mentions six decision, of which five were overturned. That does not necessarilly mean she is five for six. It means they chose to showcase those particular decisions.
| 601 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 1:52:46pm |
re: #585 tedzilla99
Here you go - it's 5 of 6 reversed with a seventh pending:
Ah! CNN - that hotbed of right-wing crazies who.......oh. Nevermind.
| 602 |
medaura18586 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:52:48pm |
That's right -- I don't believe there is such a thing as "white heritage." That's a racist position. You can talk about "Irish heritage" or "German heritage," but once you start talking about "white heritage," you're in Stormfront territory.
267 Charles
I don't think the term "white heritage" is the equivalent of "Latina heritage." One is related to skin color -- the other is cultural.
I agree with the first statement but disagree with the second. It's a subtle difference I have personally experienced as a non-native English speaker: It's hard for me to discern slight accents in the English (for example, how spoken Canadian English differs from standard American English) or how a mid-western accent differs from a California accent. I see only the similarities, whereas people steeped in an English speaking environment see the differences. Likewise, most east-Asian faces look very similar to me, though I've had Asian friends at university confess the same about European faces. We tend to perceive whole categories of qualities, visual, auditory, and sometimes cultural, in broad brushes if we are not familiar with them.
But just as there is no "white heritage" outside of the fever-swamps of Stormfront or other WN organizations, there should be no "Latino heritage," strictly speaking, outside the rhetoric of groups such as La Raza.
There is Mexican heritage, Puerto Rican heritage, Honduran heritage, and so on, but I don't think "Latino heritage" is an appropriate term -- perhaps those not from Spanish speaking countries/cultures can naively employ it, as an example of painting the Other in broad-strokes -- but it seems odd to me that for someone of Spanish speaking background to speak of "Latino heritage," -- just as inappropriate as the use of "white heritage" by someone of European descent.
I'm trying to make a fine point here, but I hope people catch my drift.
| 603 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 1:53:08pm |
re: #553 Charles
In other words, it's a distortion.
That, and the math is bad. 11 of 44 works out to 33 out of 44 against, which is 75%, not 80%.
But it's a cooked metric anyway, that I've never seen used anywhere. And when originally presented, it was held out explicitly as her "reversal rating," which is clearly is not.
It's obvious that someone has been spending time with the short list, trying to cook the books in order to come up with something that sounds damning. If they have to stretch things this far, I expect a quick, easy confirmation; I only hope the GOP doesn't decide to try and run with such an obviously bogus metric and make themselves look like petulant morons in the process. Far, far better for them to stand up for the principles they would hope to see a potential justice espouse than to wallow into the Bork slime pit.
| 604 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:53:15pm |
re: #589 jcm
Under the AWB,
This rifle is okay.
This is not.Both are Springfield M1/14. Functionally they are identical.
"Okay, so we'll ban the other one, too. Problem solved!"
-Eric Holder & Co.
| 605 |
Rednek Tue, May 26, 2009 1:53:48pm |
| 606 |
Flyers1974 Tue, May 26, 2009 1:53:51pm |
Regarding reversal rates: If you are a conservative, and if theoretically, the Supreme Court were majority liberal, and thus ruled the second amendment doesn't apply to individuals, would you be upset at a lower court conservative judge who ruled the second amendment does apply to the individual? In other words, would you be upset that the conservative judge was ignoring precedent? Would it matter to you what that judges rate of reversal was?
| 607 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:54:10pm |
re: #598 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Field of Reams
Schindler's Fist
A Tale of Two Titties
Sex Trek: The Next Penetration
Thanks For the Mammaries
When Harry Ate Sally
| 608 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 1:54:42pm |
| 609 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 1:54:43pm |
re: #598 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Field of Reams
Schindler's Fist
A Tale of Two Titties
That's "A Sale of Two Titties" by Edmund Welles.
| 610 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:55:11pm |
re: #602 medaura18586
Since she's Puerto Rican, she's technically hispanic, not latino. At least that's my understanding from a Puerto Rican friend of mine.
| 612 |
amir Tue, May 26, 2009 1:55:50pm |
re: #585 tedzilla99
The one decision which was upheld: "upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted"
| 613 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 1:55:55pm |
re: #607 Occasional Reader
Sex Trek: The Next Penetration
Thanks For the Mammaries
When Harry Ate Sally
Bareback Mounting
| 614 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 1:56:01pm |
re: #607 Occasional Reader
Sex Trek: The Next Penetration
Thanks For the Mammaries
When Harry Ate Sally
Ordinary Peepholes.
| 615 |
KenJen Tue, May 26, 2009 1:56:19pm |
re: #607 Occasional Reader
Sex Trek: The Next Penetration
Thanks For the Mammaries
When Harry Ate Sally
Forrest's Rump.
| 616 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 1:56:21pm |
re: #561 Honorary Yooper
She may not be a good choice, but the 80% number is bogus from what I've seen. It is little more than a smear. If you want to do some serious comparing, check out the Posner article. It looks like Diane Wood would make a stronger candidate for the SCOTUS than Sonia Sotomayor based on the metrics he used. I think Obama is making a mistake here, not choosing who appears to be the best of the group, regardless of ideology.
He'll get another chance soon enough with Ginsburg. Although I'm sure he believes Sotomayor is an excellent pick, he's probably also testing the waters to see how much opposition he's going to run up against.
| 617 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:56:27pm |
re: #593 pink freud
Yep. Interesting times, indeed.
And she was given a smack down by fellow Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes for inappropriately trying to broom the Plaintiffs' claims of unfair treatment.
| 618 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 1:56:29pm |
re: #602 medaura18586
there should be no "Latino heritage," strictly speaking, outside the rhetoric of groups such as La Raza.
One entirely anecdotal, personal observation: As one moves up the socioeconomic ladder in Latin America, the cultures become more and more similar. Elites in, say, Brazil and Mexico are pretty similar; poor people in those countries are very different.
| 619 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:56:36pm |
From yahoo:
At a Senate hearing in 1997 before she was confirmed to the appeals court, Sotomayor was asked by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., whether she would "read additional rights into the Constitution" such as a right to homosexual conduct by a prisoner.
"I cannot do it," she replied. "The Constitution is what it is. We cannot read rights into them. They have been created for us."
| 620 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 1:56:50pm |
Oy! I got logged out somehow and couldn't remember my new password. I almost cried buckets. Charles advised us to change our passwords so naturally I made a new one that I would forget in five seconds.
Okay, where were we? Sotomayor ate whose baby?
//
I still think she's an awful choice for our nations highest court, but I can still smile. It could be worse.
| 621 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:57:27pm |
re: #618 Occasional Reader
One entirely anecdotal, personal observation: As one moves up the socioeconomic ladder in Latin America, the cultures become more and more similar. Elites in, say, Brazil and Mexico are pretty similar; poor people in those countries are very different.
I always check the pantry for Grey Poupon; it's a dead giveaway.
| 623 |
Rednek Tue, May 26, 2009 1:57:33pm |
re: #614 Spare O'Lake
Ordinary Peepholes.
I stepped away and I am guessing Long Dong Silver somehow penetrated the thread.
| 624 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:57:47pm |
From yahoo:
At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."
| 625 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 1:57:58pm |
re: #614 Spare O'Lake
Ordinary Peepholes.
I've mentioned "Flesh Gordon" (a real movie; a great parody but not much of a porn film.)
Funny, no one ever did the obvious parody of "Buck Rogers".
BTW, the rocket in Flesh Gordon really was phallic, and also started with a VW key. Dr Flexi Jerkoff did such a good job...
| 626 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 1:58:14pm |
re: #620 kynna
Oy! I got logged out somehow and couldn't remember my new password. I almost cried buckets. Charles advised us to change our passwords so naturally I made a new one that I would forget in five seconds.
Okay, where were we? Sotomayor ate whose baby?
//
I still think she's an awful choice for our nations highest court, but I can still smile. It could be worse.
Yeah, I could be your dentist and then smiling would be out?
/
| 627 |
jaunte Tue, May 26, 2009 1:58:17pm |
re: #610 Sharmuta
Since she's Puerto Rican, she's technically hispanic, not latino. At least that's my understanding from a Puerto Rican friend of mine.
Some polling data on that here:
'HISPANIC' VS 'LATINO'
A new poll finds that the term 'Hispanic' is preferred
By Christine GranadosAre you a Hispanic or a Latino? We have been asking ourselves this question since the seventies when the government adopted the term "Hispanic" to keep population statistics and monitor compliance to Affirmative Action laws. And the answer isn't as clear-cut as one might expect. Choosing one term over the other means taking a political, social, and even a generational stand.
Stereotypically, those who call themselves Hispanic are more assimilated, conservative, and young, while those who choose the term Latino tend to be liberal, older, and sometimes radical.[Link: coloquio.com...]
| 629 |
eon Tue, May 26, 2009 1:58:27pm |
re: #532 SixDegrees
So, on a different topic: following a weekend which saw Iran's navy deploy itself into the Gulf, and Little Kimmy detonate a full-fledged nuclear bomb while simultaneously performing missile tests in Japan's general direction...where the hell is our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton? Shouldn't she be out there, front and center, addressing these issues? And if she's been kidnapped by aliens, or raptured, or consigned to a closet somewhere by her boss, shouldn't the nation have heard about it?
Her absence is both odd and disturbing. Not that I miss her. Just that it's becoming questionable whether the US has any coherent foreign policy at all.
Good afternoon, Lizards.
Well, when the s#!t hit the fan with Lil' Kim, Hill' was in Shanghai, apparently reassuring the financial bigwigs in the "New Industrial Zone" that The One & Co., LLC, really was good for all the money they're about to lend same, no doubt at suitably usurious rates. ("The long-term interest will be 35% compounded quarterly, plus Taiwan". Yes, that's ////////lotsasarc- I think.)
Yesterday, she was at Yale, receiving an honorary doctorate in ...Law. ( A logical recognition of her work at the Rose law firm.... I guess. ////////Also sarc.)
So, apparently, she only just learned about the fireworks above the DMZ this morning. As yet, she hasn't said anything on the subject.
/ Most likely trying to figure out how to blame it on either Seoul, Bush, or just the West in general. /// Maybe.
cheers
eon
| 630 |
summergurl Tue, May 26, 2009 1:58:28pm |
re: #532 SixDegrees
My thought as well. Was the announcement of Sotomayor pre-scheduled for today prior to yesterdays events? or was it moved up to deter us from focusing on whether or not a Nork nuke may end up in Diamond Head?
| 631 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:58:39pm |
| 633 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 1:58:59pm |
re: #606 Flyers1974
Regarding reversal rates: If you are a conservative, and if theoretically, the Supreme Court were majority liberal, and thus ruled the second amendment doesn't apply to individuals, would you be upset at a lower court conservative judge who ruled the second amendment does apply to the individual? In other words, would you be upset that the conservative judge was ignoring precedent? Would it matter to you what that judges rate of reversal was?
Of course. Because the SCOTUS would be defying the Constitution.
It's not about liberal v. conservative. It is about the LAW.
| 635 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 1:59:28pm |
re: #604 Occasional Reader
"Okay, so we'll ban the other one, too. Problem solved!"
-Eric Holder & Co.
When Red Ryder's are outlawed...
| 636 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 1:59:29pm |
Loppyd: you are doing good digging for facts, does the six represent 100 percent of the cases she sent to SC or were there more?
| 637 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 1:59:35pm |
From yahoo:
As a federal appeals court judge in 2002, she ruled against an abortion rights group that had challenged a government policy prohibiting foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions.
In her opinion, Sotomayor wrote that the government was free to favor the anti-abortion position over a pro-choice position when public funds were involved.
| 638 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 1:59:55pm |
| 640 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:00:06pm |
re: #558 HelloDare
Video: Rush calls Sotomayor a racist, gets called a racist in return
wow it doesn't bode well for her when Jonathan Turley is dissing her:
"Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University Law School, said the case of the firefighters "raised very important and troubling questions" that the panel on which Sotomayor served "dismissed out of hand."
"Many questions were dismissed on a cursory basis -- she didn't actually write an opinion. [The ruling] did not do justice to the claims and, in my view, the litigants," he said.
turn doesn't use the 48 hour rule because he would have forgotten what the issue was after waiting that long. So I'm going to say that her comments were racist IMO and should be fair game to take her down. But that ain't gonna happen because guess what? Only republicans are racist. The left will obfuscate over this and the repubs will realize it could have been far worse and she'll get the nomination. I don't get too worked up on this but I don't like the idea of her injecting either her gender or "race" in her decision making process.
| 641 |
Kragar Tue, May 26, 2009 2:00:33pm |
re: #632 Ben Hur
Big Green footBALLS.
Someone needs to get their bore punched and a shot of pencillin in that case.
| 642 |
eon Tue, May 26, 2009 2:00:38pm |
re: #607 Occasional Reader
Sex Trek: The Next Penetration
Already used, by Vivid, in 1996.
cheers
eon
| 643 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 2:00:40pm |
re: #628 Iron Fist
Fortunately, that damn thing is dead. I don't see it coming back in Obama's first term. That is the one area that Obama has not been the disaster that I thought he would be. However, it doesn't surprise me that he would nominate someone hostile to the Second Amendment to the Court. Heller must have come as quite a shock. A few more decisions like that (and the utterly surprising 9th Circuit case), and it won't matter what the Left want to say about gun control. They won't be able to do anything about it.
As I've said before, if they don't like the Second Amendment, they can amend the Constitution.
This congress passed the law getting rid of the National park ban, good news. And yes AWB is dead, I was just pointing out it's fundamental insanity.
| 644 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 2:00:52pm |
re: #626 Nevergiveup
Yeah, I could be your dentist and then smiling would be out?
/
Hm. My dentist already stinks and I'm still grinnin' with my mismatched veneer right in front. :D Ooh -- there I go again.
| 645 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 2:00:56pm |
re: #629 eon
Good afternoon, Lizards.
Well, when the s#!t hit the fan with Lil' Kim, Hill' was in Shanghai, apparently reassuring the financial bigwigs in the "New Industrial Zone" that The One & Co., LLC, really was good for all the money they're about to lend same, no doubt at suitably usurious rates. ("The long-term interest will be 35% compounded quarterly, plus Taiwan". Yes, that's ////////lotsasarc- I think.)
Yesterday, she was at Yale, receiving an honorary doctorate in ...Law. ( A logical recognition of her work at the Rose law firm.... I guess. ////////Also sarc.)
So, apparently, she only just learned about the fireworks above the DMZ this morning. As yet, she hasn't said anything on the subject.
/ Most likely trying to figure out how to blame it on either Seoul, Bush, or just the West in general. /// Maybe.
cheers
eon
So, we've got a fluffer as SoS?
And it's Hillary?
Eww.
| 646 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 2:01:19pm |
re: #636 Thanos
Loppyd: you are doing good digging for facts, does the six represent 100 percent of the cases she sent to SC or were there more?
I didn't dig that one up. However, I suspect CNN of all news organizations would not have left out any other cases that reached the SCOTUS - especially if they had better results.
| 647 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 2:01:20pm |
re: #627 jaunte
I was told it's "Hispanic" for folks from Hispaniola, and Latino for folks from Latin America. I'm not sure if it really matters, I just thought I mention it. Perhaps I shouldn't have.
| 648 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:01:28pm |
re: #644 kynna
Hm. My dentist already stinks and I'm still grinnin' with my mismatched veneer right in front. :D Ooh -- there I go again.
Seriously that can and should be fixed.
| 649 |
nyc redneck Tue, May 26, 2009 2:01:42pm |
it is troublesome that someone at the level of nominee for scotus would banter
abt. the subjects of their gender and nationality as relevant to their ability to make 'better' decisions in any legal capacity at all.
this is very unprofessional.
it shows she has not moved beyond the very issues that could cause her to be biased in her decisions.
she should be a jurist first, seeking objective interpretation of the law.
i don't even want to know she is a woman and a latino.
i just want to know she is an intelligent, experienced person who respects the constitution.
she is muddying the waters w/ race and gender.
we don't need this. it makes me think she is unqualified fundamentally.
| 650 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 2:01:45pm |
re: #630 summergurl
My thought as well. Was the announcement of Sotomayor pre-scheduled for today prior to yesterdays events? or was it moved up to deter us from focusing on whether or not a Nork nuke may end up in Diamond Head?
Historically, attacking Hawaii has been a bad idea.
| 651 |
KenJen Tue, May 26, 2009 2:01:45pm |
re: #629 eon
Do you think she blames her hubby for any of this?/
| 652 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 2:01:54pm |
re: #642 eon
Already used, by Vivid, in 1996.
cheers
eon
I wasn't claiming it was original. (And I'm happy to report I don't know who or what "Vivid" is.)
Let me guess; the lead character was named "Captain Prickhard", right?
| 653 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:02:36pm |
re: #650 OldLineTexan
Historically, attacking Hawaii has been a bad idea.
Well especially if you miss the Aircraft Carriers?
| 655 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:02:59pm |
re: #647 Sharmuta
I was told it's "Hispanic" for folks from Hispaniola, and Latino for folks from Latin America. I'm not sure if it really matters, I just thought I mention it. Perhaps I shouldn't have.
That's the way my ex-wife always saw it. Her family is Spanish/Pueblo Indian, going back to the 1600's in Colorado, Spanish by way of Florida. She does not use the term Latino, it's Hispanic.
| 656 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 2:03:18pm |
re: #650 OldLineTexan
Historically, attacking Hawaii has been a bad idea.
Obama is trying to engineer EXACTLY THAT OUTCOME, so that the Nork nuke destroys all evidence about his nirth certifikit.
| 657 |
amir Tue, May 26, 2009 2:03:19pm |
re: #585 tedzilla99
There seems to be a mistake with you source. At one point it says:
"Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
Further down it says: "Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): ... The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)"
So it may be 4 of 6 reversed. (66% as opposed to 83%). It depends which one is accurate.
| 658 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:03:23pm |
re: #566 Walter L. Newton
And every judge should strive to make sure cultural heritage and life experiences doesn't effect their decisions. The only experiences that should play into decisions should be judicial experiences.
Exactly.
| 659 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 2:03:24pm |
re: #625 Kosh's Shadow
I've mentioned "Flesh Gordon" (a real movie; a great parody but not much of a porn film.)
Funny, no one ever did the obvious parody of "Buck Rogers".BTW, the rocket in Flesh Gordon really was phallic, and also started with a VW key. Dr Flexi Jerkoff did such a good job...
Yes, but we seem to be evolving into Academy Award Winning prono films.
Ben Whore
| 660 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 2:03:25pm |
re: #649 nyc redneck
it is troublesome that someone at the level of nominee for scotus would banter
abt. the subjects of their gender and nationality as relevant to their ability to make 'better' decisions in any legal capacity at all.
this is very unprofessional.
it shows she has not moved beyond the very issues that could cause her to be biased in her decisions.
she should be a jurist first, seeking objective interpretation of the law.
i don't even want to know she is a woman and a latino.
i just want to know she is an intelligent, experienced person who respects the constitution.
she is muddying the waters w/ race and gender.
we don't need this. it makes me think she is unqualified fundamentally.
Amen. There is a reason that Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold.
| 661 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 2:03:25pm |
re: #630 summergurl
My thought as well. Was the announcement of Sotomayor pre-scheduled for today prior to yesterdays events? or was it moved up to deter us from focusing on whether or not a Nork nuke may end up in Diamond Head?
Unknown, although media "chatter" over a Supreme Court nomination did seem to be picking up over the weekend. So the two probably aren't related.
| 662 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 2:04:01pm |
re: #656 Occasional Reader
Obama is trying to engineer EXACTLY THAT OUTCOME, so that the Nork nuke destroys all evidence about his nirth certifikit.
i thot teh see elfont ated it?
| 663 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 2:04:20pm |
re: #650 OldLineTexan
Historically, attacking Hawaii has been a bad idea.
The Japanese found that out to their detriment.
| 664 |
jaunte Tue, May 26, 2009 2:04:22pm |
re: #647 Sharmuta
It's an interesting question; it looks as if no one has really decided definitively what term should be used. From that link I posted earlier:
Perhaps finding a term that all Hispanics can agree on is an elusive goal. "We'll never have agreement on what to call such a diverse group of people," says Latina's Martínez. "One thing I know for sure is that we're not going to solve the Latino/Hispanic debate in my lifetime."
| 665 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 2:04:23pm |
re: #659 Spare O'Lake
Yes, but we seem to be evolving into Academy Award Winning prono films.
Ben Whore
Why yes.
Yes I was.
| 666 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 2:04:51pm |
The number of cases reversed by the Supreme Court is not the same as her overall reversal rate for all cases. Too many people are taking this to mean that she's been reversed in 80% of her decisions, and that's simply not true.
| 667 |
summergurl Tue, May 26, 2009 2:04:51pm |
re: #650 OldLineTexan
Historically, attacking Hawaii has been a bad idea.
Yes, retribution is a bitch.
| 668 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 2:04:56pm |
| 669 |
Jack Burton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:05:00pm |
re: #589 jcm
Under the AWB,
This rifle is okay.
This is not.Both are Springfield M1/14. Functionally they are identical.
Because the second one is black and looks scary.
Those pistol grips make bullets seek out and go through schools easier...
//
| 670 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 2:05:14pm |
re: #660 loppyd
Amen. There is a reason that Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold.
"Kinky."
-Hedley Lamarr, Blazing Saddles
| 671 |
kynna Tue, May 26, 2009 2:06:03pm |
re: #648 Nevergiveup
Seriously that can and should be fixed.
True. Very true. But that would entail a visit to the dentist.
| 672 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 2:06:07pm |
re: #669 ArchangelMichael
Because the second one is black and looks scary.
Those pistol grips make bullets seek out and go through schools easier...
//
They allow you to shoot from the hip, greatly increasing your accuracy.
/
| 673 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 2:06:41pm |
re: #654 Sharmuta
I wonder if NOW will be against her nomination.
She upheld GWB Mexico City Policy, for not funding abortions outside the US.
The might be.
| 674 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 2:06:59pm |
I think comment 666 should be highlighted in black and red in every thread.
/just sayin'
| 675 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 2:07:56pm |
re: #673 jcm
She upheld GWB Mexico City Policy, for not funding abortions outside the US.
The might be.
I'm finding this ironic.
| 676 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 2:07:56pm |
re: #647 Sharmuta
I was told it's "Hispanic" for folks from Hispaniola, and Latino for folks from Latin America. I'm not sure if it really matters, I just thought I mention it. Perhaps I shouldn't have.
It was my understanding that "Hispanic" came from the Roman term for Spain, Hispania.
| 677 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 2:08:06pm |
re: #657 amir
There seems to be a mistake with you source. At one point it says:
"Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)Further down it says: "Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): ... The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)"
So it may be 4 of 6 reversed. (66% as opposed to 83%). It depends which one is accurate.
I was going to mention that but I see you beat me to it.
| 678 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 2:08:10pm |
re: #669 ArchangelMichael
Because the second one is black and looks scary.
Those pistol grips make bullets seek out and go through schools easier...
//
And the flash suppressor makes it invisible.
//
| 679 |
medaura18586 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:09:05pm |
re: #610 Sharmuta
Since she's Puerto Rican, she's technically hispanic, not latino. At least that's my understanding from a Puerto Rican friend of mine.
Even Hispanic can be a loaded term (by association to the Spanish conquistadors), unless strictly defined as "Spanish speaking." A language does not define one's heritage, especially when one's language is not unique to a country. I'm Albanian by origin, and only Albanians speak Albanian, so I can use my mother tongue and culture interchangeably to some extent. But Irish heritage is not the same as English heritage, though both nationalities share the same language.
And Honduran culture/heritage is not the same as Mexican culture/heritage, as my Honduran roommate in college was passionate to point out. In fact, she would speak of this wide-spread antipathy toward Mexicans in Honduran circles. I didn't quite understand it. But my point is that painting one's own culture with a broad-brush (Sotomayor, who is Puertorican, speaking of her Latino heritage) is off-putting. More specifically, it suggests to me (no proof, just my personal inclination) that she has internalized the language of class/race strife. "Latino heritage" has been likely coined or popularized as a term by activist middle-class white kids who see things in black, white, yellow, and brown. But this is wild speculation on my part.
| 680 |
OldLineTexan Tue, May 26, 2009 2:09:29pm |
re: #676 Honorary Yooper
It was my understanding that "Hispanic" came from the Roman term for Spain, Hispania.
Which is, of course, a degenerate infidel term for Andalus.
So they are not Hispanic, but rather Andalusionic!
| 681 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 2:10:21pm |
re: #666 Charles
The number of cases reversed by the Supreme Court is not the same as her overall reversal rate for all cases. Too many people are taking this to mean that she's been reversed in 80% of her decisions, and that's simply not true.
That's quite right.
But shouldn't the SCOTUS reversals receive more weight, since the cases that the SCOTUS agrees to hear are supposed to be the most important ones, having national importance?
| 682 |
Ben Hur Tue, May 26, 2009 2:10:26pm |
re: #675 Sharmuta
I'm finding this ironic.
Why? Just because she's woman?
Oh, I see.
Woman=Domestic Servant=Ironing.
Don't be a h8ter.
| 683 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:10:33pm |
It's a poor record no matter how you want to spin it.
| 684 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 2:10:48pm |
re: #666 Charles
The number of cases reversed by the Supreme Court is not the same as her overall reversal rate for all cases. Too many people are taking this to mean that she's been reversed in 80% of her decisions, and that's simply not true.
The next court of relief from the U.S. Appeals Court is the SCOTUS. She has been on the the 2nd circuit since 1998. So her record there is not great.
| 685 |
eon Tue, May 26, 2009 2:10:49pm |
re: #652 Occasional Reader
I wasn't claiming it was original. (And I'm happy to report I don't know who or what "Vivid" is.)
Let me guess; the lead character was named "Captain Prickhard", right?
Vivid Video, one of the biggest ProN video production companies for the last couple of decades.
Couldn't tell you what they called the characters, as I only saw the cover in the video store.
I was looking for The Night Porter with Dirk Bogarde, which they didn't have, and when it did show up (which was seldom) was put in the "back room" for some reason. (Sort of like Trans-Europ Express.)
It finally showed up on IFC and Sundance. Color me underwhelmed after seeing it.
cheers
eon
| 686 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:11:36pm |
re: #666 Charles
The number of cases reversed by the Supreme Court is not the same as her overall reversal rate for all cases. Too many people are taking this to mean that she's been reversed in 80% of her decisions, and that's simply not true.
But, if this woman is possibly going to be on the SC, it is interesting to see how many of her decisions were reversed by the SAME court she may be serving on.
Granted, not every one of her decisions have been reviewed by the SC, but the ones that made it that far, made it that far because someone thought that the original decision was wrong, and that a higher court needed to examine the outcome.
And in a good amount of the cases, she was reversed. That would make me think twice about her fairness and judicial smarts.
| 687 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 2:12:28pm |
re: #682 Ben Hur
No- I find it ironic that she'd vote against the pro-choice groups, but it's the pro-lifers beating her up. I just wonder if NOW is going to support her or not.
| 688 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:13:36pm |
re: #686 Walter L. Newton
But, if this woman is possibly going to be on the SC, it is interesting to see how many of her decisions were reversed by the SAME court she may be serving on.
Granted, not every one of her decisions have been reviewed by the SC, but the ones that made it that far, made it that far because someone thought that the original decision was wrong, and that a higher court needed to examine the outcome.
And in a good amount of the cases, she was reversed. That would make me think twice about her fairness and judicial smarts.
Not to mention the one that was upheld but with her reasoning faulted. Not exactly stellar.
| 689 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:13:44pm |
Is it safe to say a majority of her decisions have been reversed? If so that means she interprets the law incorrectly more often than not which is troubling and a perfectly legitimate reason by itself to reject her. But that ain't going to happen.
| 690 |
KenJen Tue, May 26, 2009 2:14:08pm |
re: #687 Sharmuta
No- I find it ironic that she'd vote against the pro-choice groups, but it's the pro-lifers beating her up. I just wonder if NOW is going to support her or not.
They are supporting her. They have launched a "Confirm Her" campaign.
| 691 |
medaura18586 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:15:26pm |
re: #618 Occasional Reader
One entirely anecdotal, personal observation: As one moves up the socioeconomic ladder in Latin America, the cultures become more and more similar. Elites in, say, Brazil and Mexico are pretty similar; poor people in those countries are very different.
Elites everywhere are more exposed to the homogenizing effects of globalization, though I doubt even in centuries past, your observation rang true, albeit to a lesser extent.
Reminds me of that Tolstoy quote:
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
| 692 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 2:15:28pm |
re: #687 Sharmuta
No- I find it ironic that she'd vote against the pro-choice groups, but it's the pro-lifers beating her up. I just wonder if NOW is going to support her or not.
Now THAT is ironic.
Nice catch.
| 693 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 2:16:01pm |
re: #689 turn
Is it safe to say a majority of her decisions have been reversed? If so that means she interprets the law incorrectly more often than not which is troubling and a perfectly legitimate reason by itself to reject her. But that ain't going to happen.
The majority of her decisions which were appealed to the SCOTUS were reversed.
| 694 |
medaura18586 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:16:13pm |
re: #691 medaura18586
PIMF:
Elites everywhere are more exposed to the homogenizing effects of globalization, though I doubt even in centuries past, your observation rang true, albeit to a lesser extent.
I meant:
Elites everywhere are more exposed to the homogenizing effects of globalization, though I suspect even in centuries past, your observation rang true, albeit to a lesser extent.
| 695 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 2:16:59pm |
Sonia Sotomayor rulings via wiki:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 696 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 2:17:17pm |
re: #686 Walter L. Newton
But, if this woman is possibly going to be on the SC, it is interesting to see how many of her decisions were reversed by the SAME court she may be serving on.
Granted, not every one of her decisions have been reviewed by the SC, but the ones that made it that far, made it that far because someone thought that the original decision was wrong, and that a higher court needed to examine the outcome.
And in a good amount of the cases, she was reversed. That would make me think twice about her fairness and judicial smarts.
It's also interesting to look at who dissented from those reversals -- in almost all cases, the dissenters were the liberal justices. Which strongly suggests that the reversals were politically motivated. The Health Insurance case is the only one in which the dissenters included conservative justices, which suggests that it was NOT reversed, as the first citation says. The second (more detailed) description which says it was not reversed is probably the correct one.
| 697 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 2:17:20pm |
re: #646 loppyd
I didn't dig that one up. However, I suspect CNN of all news organizations would not have left out any other cases that reached the SCOTUS - especially if they had better results.
Just saw that she was originally nominated to Fed bench by Bush 1.
Still looking at CNN for the article with the cases in it.
| 698 |
J.S. Tue, May 26, 2009 2:17:33pm |
re: #689 turn
As far as we know, the CNN bio article selectively picked out some decisions -- we don't know whether her decisions, which were later taken up by the Supreme Court, represents all (the total number) or just a portion (a subset). anytime there's a sentence which says, "X percentage" -- before you can interpret what it means, you have to know the actual numbers (just knowing a percentage number tells you absolutely nothing..)
| 699 |
Fat Bastard Vegetarian Tue, May 26, 2009 2:17:38pm |
| 700 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:17:56pm |
re: #693 loppyd
The majority of her decisions which were appealed to the SCOTUS were reversed.
You know more about this thing, has there ever been a nominee in this position before? It would seem pretty troubling to me.
| 701 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:19:22pm |
re: #671 kynna
True. Very true. But that would entail a visit to the dentist.
Ah yeah. That does work best?
| 703 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:22:17pm |
In a November conversation caught on an FBI wiretap, Roland Burris promised Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother that he’d write the governor a campaign check by mid-December, Burris’ lawyer said today.
That was about a month before Rod Blagojevich appointed Burris to the U.S. Senate.
[Link: www.suntimes.com...]
Chicago Politics? Go figure?
| 704 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:23:13pm |
re: #698 J.S.
right, and did you know that the US emits more pollution per capita than China?
/
| 705 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, May 26, 2009 2:23:34pm |
Q: What's the worst possible screen name for a male porn star?
A: "Microsoft"
| 707 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:24:27pm |
As one of the last minority groups to be recognized and elevated into national prominence, I, as an ALBINO-DWARF-TRASNGENDERED-ILLEGAL ALIEN-FLATULANT-FOLICALLY CHALLENGED-ANTARTICAN I hereby announce that I am seeking the next SCOTUS seat!
| 708 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 2:24:39pm |
re: #705 _RememberTonyC
Q: What's the worst possible screen name for a male porn star?
A: "Microsoft"
Jokes by Apple marketing, nice......
/;-P
| 709 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 2:24:42pm |
re: #700 turn
You know more about this thing, has there ever been a nominee in this position before? It would seem pretty troubling to me.
Roberts was on the D.C. Circuit. I am not finding anything about SCOTUS reversals. He wrote 49 opinions with only 2 dissents if this Wiki info is correct.
| 710 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 2:24:43pm |
re: #696 Charles
It's also interesting to look at who dissented from those reversals -- in almost all cases, the dissenters were the liberal justices. Which strongly suggests that the reversals were politically motivated. The Health Insurance case is the only one in which the dissenters included conservative justices, which suggests that it was NOT reversed, as the first citation says. The second (more detailed) description which says it was not reversed is probably the correct one.
Or that the dissents were politically motivated.
Depressing, isn't it?
| 711 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:25:13pm |
re: #707 sattv4u2
As one of the last minority groups to be recognized and elevated into national prominence, I, as an ALBINO-DWARF-TRASNGENDERED-ILLEGAL ALIEN-FLATULANT-FOLICALLY CHALLENGED-ANTARTICAN I hereby announce that I am seeking the next SCOTUS seat!
racist./
| 712 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:26:14pm |
re: #696 Charles
It's also interesting to look at who dissented from those reversals -- in almost all cases, the dissenters were the liberal justices. Which strongly suggests that the reversals were politically motivated. The Health Insurance case is the only one in which the dissenters included conservative justices, which suggests that it was NOT reversed, as the first citation says. The second (more detailed) description which says it was not reversed is probably the correct one.
Perhaps the dissenters were politically motivated? You can't say with any certainty which is the case.
| 713 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:26:16pm |
re: #706 vxbush
Slow down, everyone! I simply cannot keep up!
You're gonna have to run faster, my dear.
| 714 |
_RememberTonyC Tue, May 26, 2009 2:26:38pm |
re: #708 jcm
Jokes by Apple marketing, nice......
/;-P
We won't even get into a possible new first name for steve JOBS
| 715 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:26:38pm |
re: #707 sattv4u2
ALBINO-DWARF-TRASNGENDERED-ILLEGAL ALIEN-FLATULANT-FOLICALLY CHALLENGED-ANTARTICAN
Hey did you know there is actually a US holiday that embraces that heritage?
/
| 716 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:26:51pm |
I'll be honest--I know little of Sotomayor and I don't think we're going to find out a whole lot on just the first day of her nomination. It's going to take several weeks for a decent picture of her judicial career to come out.
As I disagree with Obama philosophically on many things, I am less inclined to believe that he will appoint someone who will uphold the law and seriously think through the cases. But I am attempting to withhold judgement until those with more experience and knowledge in the judiciary can summarize her time on the bench.
| 717 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 2:27:18pm |
re: #689 turn
Is it safe to say a majority of her decisions have been reversed? If so that means she interprets the law incorrectly more often than not which is troubling and a perfectly legitimate reason by itself to reject her. But that ain't going to happen.
It doesn't sound as though that's a safe thing to say at all. Apparently, these "reversal rates" are being constructed through a serious cherry-picking process. What started as an "80% reversal rate" is now apparently being based on some rather unique counting methods, and is also based only on reversals that have occurred on appeals - which are certainly those most likely to be reversed, after all. Whenever anyone talks about reversal rates, however, the metric is based on number of cases reversed divided by number of cases actually heard - the divisor is never the number appealed. It's an attempt to construct a high percentage out of thin air.
Questions: How many cases has she heard while serving in her present position? How many of those have been appealed? How many of those have been reversed on appeal? The last number divided by the first is her rate of reversal; the second divided by the first is her rate of appeal; the third divided by the second is meaningless bullshit. Also: why hasn't this bizarre metric - rate of reversal measured against cases appealed - EVER been used as a gauge of success, failure or any other measure of judicial fitness?
Sorry, but as much as I've tried to be patient, this just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. It's an utterly meaningless metric that has never been applied to anyone else, ever, because it doesn't measure anything of interest. If this is going to be the basis of an "attack" on Sotormayor, prepare for a royal screwing that will reverberate for a couple of decades, if not longer.
| 718 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:27:48pm |
re: #713 reine.de.tout
You're gonna have to run faster, my dear.
But it's storming really bad outside; I can't evade all the raindrops and keep up.
| 719 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:27:49pm |
re: #696 Charles
It's also interesting to look at who dissented from those reversals -- in almost all cases, the dissenters were the liberal justices. Which strongly suggests that the reversals were politically motivated. The Health Insurance case is the only one in which the dissenters included conservative justices, which suggests that it was NOT reversed, as the first citation says. The second (more detailed) description which says it was not reversed is probably the correct one.
Point made. Doesn't change my mind. But the real scary part of your comment is "Which strongly suggests that the reversals were politically motivated." Am I missing something, or is politics supposed to be left at the courtroom door?
| 720 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:28:02pm |
re: #715 turn
ALBINO-DWARF-TRASNGENDERED-ILLEGAL ALIEN-FLATULANT-FOLICALLY CHALLENGED-ANTARTICAN
Hey did you know there is actually a US holiday that embraces that heritage?
/
February 30th?
| 721 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, May 26, 2009 2:28:03pm |
re: #710 Spare O'Lake
Or that the dissents were politically motivated.
Depressing, isn't it?
SCOTUS has been political since the day it began, with the Marshall court.
| 722 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:28:18pm |
re: #718 vxbush
But it's storming really bad outside; I can't evade all the raindrops and keep up.
argh!
You got our rain!
(Predicted, has not yet shown up)
| 723 |
LGoPs Tue, May 26, 2009 2:28:41pm |
re: #715 turn
ALBINO-DWARF-TRASNGENDERED-ILLEGAL ALIEN-FLATULANT-FOLICALLY CHALLENGED-ANTARTICAN
Hey did you know there is actually a US holiday that embraces that heritage?
/
Inuit. Inuit.
| 724 |
Spare O'Lake Tue, May 26, 2009 2:28:52pm |
re: #707 sattv4u2
As one of the last minority groups to be recognized and elevated into national prominence, I, as an ALBINO-DWARF-TRASNGENDERED-ILLEGAL ALIEN-FLATULANT-FOLICALLY CHALLENGED-ANTARTICAN I hereby announce that I am seeking the next SCOTUS seat!
So you're Polish?
| 725 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:29:02pm |
re: #709 loppyd
Roberts was on the D.C. Circuit. I am not finding anything about SCOTUS reversals. He wrote 49 opinions with only 2 dissents if this Wiki info is correct.
Thanks lop. Apparently she has been reversed quite a bit i.e. she got it wrong. Not exactly the credentials I would look for in a nominee. O is using this nomination to pander votes is the only explanation to me, he is making it all about race - and for his political gain.
| 726 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:29:30pm |
| 727 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 2:29:52pm |
re: #718 vxbush
But it's storming really bad outside; I can't evade all the raindrops and keep up.
Same here. We just had a torrential downpour north of you. We're supposed to have even more through tomorrow into Thursday. Haven't we had enough rain already?
| 728 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:30:06pm |
re: #719 Walter L. Newton
Point made. Doesn't change my mind. But the real scary part of your comment is "Which strongly suggests that the reversals were politically motivated." Am I missing something, or is politics supposed to be left at the courtroom door?
Yeah -
I could get it that a person's ideology might have an effect on how they arrive at their decisions, but politics should be out of it.
| 730 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:30:46pm |
WASHINGTON (AP) - As a senior at Yale Law School, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor forced a Washington law firm to apologize for what she considered discriminatory questions that a partner asked about her Puerto Rican heritage during a recruiting dinner.
[Link: www.breitbart.com...]
Kinda revealing/
| 731 |
Kosh's Shadow Tue, May 26, 2009 2:30:52pm |
| 732 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 2:30:57pm |
re: #695 Sharmuta
Sonia Sotomayor rulings via wiki:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Some interesting rulings in there -- she does not look like anyone's idea of a "liberal activist." Her decisions are pretty moderate overall.
For example, social conservatives ought to be pretty happy about this one:
Abortion
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,[44] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held 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".
| 733 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 2:31:14pm |
re: #693 loppyd
The majority of her decisions which were appealed to the SCOTUS were reversed.
Which is a meaningless, bullshit metric used by absolutely no one.
You're attempting to conflate this bogus measurement with her reversal rate (reversals/total number of cases heard) and her appeals rate (appeals/total number of cases heard). There isn't even a name for the measurement you're proposing.
Stop shoveling this manure. It cannot and will not help anything. It will only succeed in making Conservatives look like knuckle-dragging morons.
| 734 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:31:45pm |
re: #716 vxbush
I'll be honest--I know little of Sotomayor and I don't think we're going to find out a whole lot on just the first day of her nomination. It's going to take several weeks for a decent picture of her judicial career to come out.
As I disagree with Obama philosophically on many things, I am less inclined to believe that he will appoint someone who will uphold the law and seriously think through the cases. But I am attempting to withhold judgement until those with more experience and knowledge in the judiciary can summarize her time on the bench.
But jumping on and making wildly exaggerated claims can be so much fun sometimes?
/
| 735 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:32:00pm |
re: #730 Nevergiveup
Birth info...
Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, to Puerto Rican parents. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx, a short walk from Yankee Stadium.[4][5]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 736 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 2:32:09pm |
re: #732 Charles
Some interesting rulings in there -- she does not look like anyone's idea of a "liberal activist." Her decisions are pretty moderate overall.
For example, social conservatives ought to be pretty happy about this one:
Abortion
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,[44] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held 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".
And yet they're up in arms.
| 737 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:32:58pm |
re: #735 Walter L. Newton
Birth info...
Sotomayor was born in the Bronx, to Puerto Rican parents. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx, a short walk from Yankee Stadium.[4][5]
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Yeah I read that, but still not really sure what that means.
| 738 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:33:08pm |
re: #712 tedzilla99
Perhaps the dissenters were politically motivated? You can't say with any certainty which is the case.
I was thinking the same thing, maybe they dissented because they didn't want to go on record as having opposed a liberals mistake in interpreting the law.
| 739 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:33:19pm |
re: #727 Honorary Yooper
Same here. We just had a torrential downpour north of you. We're supposed to have even more through tomorrow into Thursday. Haven't we had enough rain already?
Most of the farmers around here haven't put their crops out. I'm not sure how late they can go and still get everything harvested, but this is not looking good.
And I was really hoping it wasn't going to rain much while the son was at camp, because all that rain is really hard on his wheelchair.
| 740 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:33:25pm |
re: #732 Charles
ome interesting rulings in there -- she does not look like anyone's idea of a "liberal activist." Her decisions are pretty moderate overall.
For example, social conservatives ought to be pretty happy about this one:
Abortion
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush,[44] Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the Mexico City Policy which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held 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"
.
Yes, actually, social-con me would be pretty happy about that one.
And hopeful that this sort of thought process would continue once confirmed to SCOTUS.
| 741 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 2:33:56pm |
re: #721 EmmmieG
SCOTUS has been political since the day it began, with the Marshall court.
Trivia question: Who was the first chief justice?
Hint: It wasn't Marshall!
| 742 |
tedzilla99 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:34:18pm |
re: #740 reine.de.tout
Yes, actually, social-con me would be pretty happy about that one.
And hopeful that this sort of thought process would continue once confirmed to SCOTUS.
Her boasting of making policy from the bench is going to be hard to overcome, for me anyway.
| 743 |
RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY Tue, May 26, 2009 2:34:24pm |
re: #678 jcm
And the flash suppressor makes it invisible.
//
But the real selling point of the "Black Rifle"
is the adjustable stock ...lending it self more user friendly
to "little tykes" Brigade....(Must be 10 or younger)!
| 744 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:34:50pm |
re: #734 Nevergiveup
But jumping on and making wildly exaggerated claims can be so much fun sometimes?
/
Oh, no doubt. But fairly useless, if a regular pastime of both political parties.
| 745 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:34:50pm |
re: #737 Nevergiveup
Yeah I read that, but still not really sure what that means.
Are you looking for her nirth certificate?
/
| 746 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 2:35:02pm |
re: #732 Charles
Which makes me wonder about Obama's motives for choosing Sotomayor in particular (rather than say, Wood). Remember, this is a guy who came out of the sewer we call Chicago politics. He's been inconsistent enough on the liberal-left stuff to even piss off Kos. Reminds me more of Blago and Daley.
We'll know more in the coming days and weeks.
| 747 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:35:02pm |
re: #741 Dianna
Trivia question: Who was the first chief justice?
Hint: It wasn't Marshall!
john jay
| 748 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:35:34pm |
| 749 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:35:39pm |
re: #741 Dianna
Trivia question: Who was the first chief justice?
Hint: It wasn't Marshall!
John Jay?
Or is this a trick question?
| 750 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, May 26, 2009 2:35:45pm |
re: #741 Dianna
Trivia question: Who was the first chief justice?
Hint: It wasn't Marshall!
You're right. Jay?
| 751 |
turn Tue, May 26, 2009 2:36:40pm |
re: #717 SixDegrees
Thanks six. "Also: why hasn't this bizarre metric - rate of reversal measured against cases appealed - EVER been used as a gauge of success, failure or any other measure of judicial fitness?" I didn't know that. If so why now? Curious.
Later all, time to go walk the lab along the American.
| 752 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 2:36:41pm |
re: #739 vxbush
Most of the farmers around here haven't put their crops out. I'm not sure how late they can go and still get everything harvested, but this is not looking good.
And I was really hoping it wasn't going to rain much while the son was at camp, because all that rain is really hard on his wheelchair.
Same here, regarding the crops. We had a recent dry spell, and I hope they were able to get some of the corn and soybeans planted.
| 753 |
Nevergiveup Tue, May 26, 2009 2:37:01pm |
re: #749 reine.de.tout
John Jay?
Or is this a trick question?
Well most of the ticks in NYC do know that? Not the Johns usually.
| 754 |
jcm Tue, May 26, 2009 2:37:08pm |
re: #743 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY
But the real selling point of the "Black Rifle"
is the adjustable stock ...lending it self more user friendly
to "little tykes" Brigade....(Must be 10 or younger)!
For mine the adjustable stock put the recoil much squarer into the shoulder. The stock one the recoil force vector is above he shoulder making the muzzle rise more. With the recoil the muzzle rise is much less pronounced giving better control.
| 755 |
Honorary Yooper Tue, May 26, 2009 2:37:25pm |
re: #741 Dianna
Trivia question: Who was the first chief justice?
Hint: It wasn't Marshall!
John Jay.
| 756 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 2:37:38pm |
I'm very pleased that three people answered my trivia question correctly!
John Jay gets very short shrift.
| 757 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 2:38:01pm |
re: #736 Sharmuta
And yet they're up in arms.
This is looking like a virulent case of 0DS. And pushing it on the "merits" being pursued so far - quotes taken out of context, concocted metrics, mincing of statements down the level of syllables - the opposition is going to get beaten into the ground like a tent peg to the point where any actual, tangible objection raised is going to be tossed aside without consideration, because everything going before it makes consideration seem pointless.
Ugh.
| 758 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:38:06pm |
re: #742 tedzilla99
Her boasting of making policy from the bench is going to be hard to overcome, for me anyway.
I watched that clip, and no, I don't like that statement, but she looked to me like she was sort of stumbling around with an answer to something.
Now, should someone nominated for Supreme Court of the US be making those kinds of statements, or those kinds of mistakes if it was one?
No, not in my mind.
I honestly just don't know enough about her right now.
| 759 |
RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY Tue, May 26, 2009 2:38:07pm |
re: #707 sattv4u2
As one of the last minority groups to be recognized and elevated into national prominence, I, as an ALBINO-DWARF-TRASNGENDERED-ILLEGAL ALIEN-FLATULANT-FOLICALLY CHALLENGED-ANTARTICAN I hereby announce that I am seeking the next SCOTUS seat!
Sorry!
Your ancestors CLUBED SEAL...SEAL BABIES!
/// Peta out!
| 760 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:38:17pm |
re: #756 Dianna
I'm very pleased that three people answered my trivia question correctly!
John Jay gets very short shrift.
I'm sure it was enough for Mrs Jay, however!
oh ,,, umm,,,, wait !
| 761 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, May 26, 2009 2:38:18pm |
re: #741 Dianna
Trivia question: Who was the first chief justice?
Hint: It wasn't Marshall!
Okay, I admit, I cheated and looked it up. However--I did know without looking that the court did not initially function as the power that it is now.
| 762 |
Dianna Tue, May 26, 2009 2:39:19pm |
re: #760 sattv4u2
I'm sure it was enough for Mrs Jay, however!
oh ,,, umm,,,, wait !
Never forget that Washington wrote a letter to an older friend who was marrying a much younger lady that was quite racy!
These were not people who would mind that sort of joke.
| 763 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:39:34pm |
Regarding this ruling:
• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)
(from the CNN link above)
I would be interested in reading more on this. Subrogation liens are very common, and in normal circumstances the insurance company has a right to be reimbursed. More details on the cause of the injuries would be quite helpful. If the contract is clear on this (and it is very common in many medical insurance contracts and car insurance contracts), then I can't understand how she could rule that the insurance company had no right to the money. It may have to do with whether the money came from an insurance firm or not.
| 764 |
pink freud Tue, May 26, 2009 2:40:22pm |
re: #722 reine.de.tout
argh!
You got our rain!
(Predicted, has not yet shown up)
Great! I am about rained out here ...been raining every day for at least a week.
| 765 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:40:48pm |
re: #762 Dianna
Never forget that Washington wrote a letter to an older friend who was marrying a much younger lady that was quite racy!
These were not people who would mind that sort of joke.
After what they had been through (fighting a war ,, building a country) I'm sure a rowdy laugh now and then was MANDATORY
| 766 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:41:17pm |
More footage of this thing.....
Lesser Jerboa
| 767 |
n2stox Tue, May 26, 2009 2:41:19pm |
Elections have consequences, and this is one.
She appears qualified and judge-material, so get the confirmation over with already.
I'd rather watch Pelosi make up another fairytale.
Or, we can move on to real news, like how Hesbollah is trying to secure funds from the IMF. WTF is that all about? Seriously? The IMF is going to give $ to Hesbollah?
| 768 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:42:18pm |
re: #764 pink freud
Great! I am about rained out here ...been raining every day for at least a week.
Same here. It's spring. Nothing new. You're lucky you haven't been blown into the next state east of you by a tornado. It is that time of year.
| 769 |
J.S. Tue, May 26, 2009 2:42:25pm |
re: #725 turn
Turn, we really (at this point) can't say that "most of her decisions eventually resulted in reversals" -- can't say that until we know the numbers -- the actual numbers -- how many of her decisions went on to the Supreme Court? what's the number there? (then, we can look at the number of those which were reversed...but until we know the total number of her cases which went before the Supreme Court, we don't know if a "majority were reversed." no evidence of that yet...)
| 770 |
RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY Tue, May 26, 2009 2:43:08pm |
re: #754 jcm
True!
Not all mine "fit" as well as my custom stocks....
My LP is 15 1/2 inches ..........Big diff... the bigger the Cal..
| 771 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, May 26, 2009 2:43:38pm |
re: #762 Dianna
Never forget that Washington wrote a letter to an older friend who was marrying a much younger lady that was quite racy!
These were not people who would mind that sort of joke.
There's a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams that I thought was very sweet--it has a compliment in it I had to read three times before I got it. She had asked for him to look around in Paris for statuettes to decorate the London embassy with. He said---let me go look it up--"They offered me a fine Venus; but I thought it out of taste to have two at table at the same time."
| 772 |
sattv4u2 Tue, May 26, 2009 2:43:47pm |
re: #766 Killgore Trout
More footage of this thing.....
Lesser Jerboa
Thats what happens when you put a squirrel and a kangaroo in the honeymoon suite !
| 773 |
albusteve Tue, May 26, 2009 2:43:48pm |
re: #756 Dianna
I'm very pleased that three people answered my trivia question correctly!
John Jay gets very short shrift.
nearly shriftless...anyway I would not trust BOs judgement on this pick just on principle alone...he has nothing, why should he have anything going here?....he wants a liberal, emotional judge..and her past record will not speak for the fututre even if she has the wisdom of Soloman...he has a distinc propensity to to pick a ringer, why is this any different?
| 774 |
pink freud Tue, May 26, 2009 2:43:55pm |
re: #768 Walter L. Newton
Same here. It's spring. Nothing new. You're lucky you haven't been blown into the next state east of you by a tornado. It is that time of year.
"Hurricane" Walter, hurricane! :)
Not a lot of tornadoes round these parts, thank G_d. I would rather face a hurricane than a tornado anyday.
| 775 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:44:37pm |
re: #758 reine.de.tout
It's probably no big deal....
"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained
| 776 |
experiencedtraveller Tue, May 26, 2009 2:44:59pm |
re: #732 Charles
Charles, it isn't about her. Its about the Senate. The (D) made SC confirmations a political event. At this point, the (R) are an absolute minority with nothing to lose by trying to cast doubt on a (D) President via his SC choice.
| 777 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:45:22pm |
re: #774 pink freud
"Hurricane" Walter, hurricane! :)
Not a lot of tornadoes round these parts, thank G_d. I would rather face a hurricane than a tornado anyday.
Really? I feel exactly the opposite. I've grown up in tornado alley, so I know what to do and how to do it. Hurricanes kind of freak me out because there's so much water that can cause so much damage.
| 778 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:45:28pm |
re: #763 vxbush
Regarding this ruling:
(from the CNN link above)
I would be interested in reading more on this. Subrogation liens are very common, and in normal circumstances the insurance company has a right to be reimbursed. More details on the cause of the injuries would be quite helpful. If the contract is clear on this (and it is very common in many medical insurance contracts and car insurance contracts), then I can't understand how she could rule that the insurance company had no right to the money. It may have to do with whether the money came from an insurance firm or not.
Common also in worker's comp cases, to have the worker's comp fund reimbursed from a settlement the amount paid in worker's comp to the employee.
| 779 |
SixDegrees Tue, May 26, 2009 2:47:11pm |
re: #751 turn
Thanks six. "Also: why hasn't this bizarre metric - rate of reversal measured against cases appealed - EVER been used as a gauge of success, failure or any other measure of judicial fitness?" I didn't know that. If so why now? Curious.
Later all, time to go walk the lab along the American.
One more thing: no one - no one - in their right mind takes a case to the Supreme Court thinking they are going to do anything but prevail. And the Supreme Court itself doesn't accept cases that don't stand a chance of reversal - they simply let the existing ruling stand. Choosing to base a metric on rate of reversals of cases appealed is a deliberate attempt to concoct a metric that will - inevitably - produce a very high number, simply because of the nature of the appeals and reversal process when you get all the way to the Supreme Court level.
Real, honest measures would be rate of reversals, or rate of appeals, relative to the judge's entire body of heard cases. In fact, I'm fairly certain that this metric actually gets used on occasion when evaluating cases of judicial incompetence and misconduct. But we aren't getting any information on this nominee's actual case load. Probably because relative to case load, both her rate of appeal and rate of reversal is extremely low. How many cases do you think she's heard during - what is it? Ten years? - on the bench? Out of which, apparently, four have been reversed out of five that have been appealed, if we're to believe the selected dribbles of information we've been handed.
| 780 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:48:16pm |
re: #775 Killgore Trout
It's probably no big deal....
"Where Policy Is Made": Sotomayor's Court Comment Explained
That article seems to be saying that where a court determines whether or not a law or "policy" is legal, the court has played a role in setting the policy when they make that determination. And that that is what she was trying to say.
Did I understand the gist of it?
| 781 |
pink freud Tue, May 26, 2009 2:49:06pm |
re: #777 vxbush
Really? I feel exactly the opposite. I've grown up in tornado alley, so I know what to do and how to do it. Hurricanes kind of freak me out because there's so much water that can cause so much damage.
Your reasoning is my very own, for hurricanes. :-)
I know what to do, I have a lifetime of dealing with and 'reading' them, I know when to run and when to stay. The water threat is mostly for low-lying and coastal areas ...I am 40 miles from the coast, although for Katrina I drove south until I met the gulf .....it had come in more than ten miles. I'd never seen that. The biggest danger around here is falling trees ....those great old water oaks with shallow root systems just topple right over and cause major death and even death at times.
| 782 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:49:10pm |
re: #777 vxbush
Really? I feel exactly the opposite. I've grown up in tornado alley, so I know what to do and how to do it. Hurricanes kind of freak me out because there's so much water that can cause so much damage.
We pretty much don't have a shelter (basement) to go to when there's a tornado, VX. We're stuck above ground. I'm in pink's corner on this.
| 783 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 2:49:28pm |
re: #730 Nevergiveup
WASHINGTON (AP) - As a senior at Yale Law School, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor forced a Washington law firm to apologize for what she considered discriminatory questions that a partner asked about her Puerto Rican heritage during a recruiting dinner.
[Link: www.breitbart.com...]
Kinda revealing/
Reminds me of a much more egregious incident that happened when I was in law school. I don't remember which firm was recruiting at which school; during an interview, a litigation partner asked a black, female student/prospective associate something like "how would you react in the courtroom if someone were to call you 'ni***r bitch'?" Huge brouhaha erupted... multiple law schools (including my own) boycotted the firm from interviewing, until the firm apologized.
| 784 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:49:32pm |
re: #777 vxbush
Really? I feel exactly the opposite. I've grown up in tornado alley, so I know what to do and how to do it. Hurricanes kind of freak me out because there's so much water that can cause so much damage.
I was out in the Colorado plains yesterday, on the way back, we drove under a "wall cloud" that was almost touching the road. If it had been warmer at ground level, this would have been the makings of a really nasty tornado. For a matter of fact, there was a whole front of clouds that would have been ripe for tornados it the ground temps were a bit warmer.
On the way out to where we were going (about 90 miles east of Golden, Colorado), it was raining so hard that it was practically impossible to see 10 feet in front of you.
I pulled off the highway to the frontage road and sat for about 10 minutes, and went the rest of the 20 miles I to go on the frontage route.
| 785 |
Russkilitlover Tue, May 26, 2009 2:50:28pm |
re: #736 Sharmuta
And yet they're up in arms.
Many Latina/o, Hispanic, though very liberal are not very pro-abortion. It's her racist comments and her "feelings" approach to the judiciary that are troubling to conservatives. So there are plenty of reasons for conservatives to be "up in arms," notwithstanding an abortion opinion.
| 786 |
RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY Tue, May 26, 2009 2:50:56pm |
re: #777 vxbush
That's a diff point of view ....here comes....
Huricanes are known and named days before land fall!
They impact whole coast lines and inland 8-15 miles!
Tonados? mabe 15- 20 minutes warning? If that!
I'll take Huricane country ......
| 787 |
Walter L. Newton Tue, May 26, 2009 2:51:04pm |
re: #785 Russkilitlover
Many Latina/o, Hispanic, though very liberal are not very pro-abortion. It's her racist comments and her "feelings" approach to the judiciary that are troubling to conservatives. So there are plenty of reasons for conservatives to be "up in arms," notwithstanding an abortion opinion.
And her past paper on gun ownership.
| 788 |
Killgore Trout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:53:06pm |
re: #780 reine.de.tout
Basically yes.....
Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."As Segal noted, one of the most recent cases heard by the Supreme Court -- itself a court of appeals -- involves the strip search of a 13-year-old who school officials believed was carrying ibuprofen. "There is no clear knowing statement whether officials can be sued for that sort of behavior," he noted. "So when justices come up with a decision on that, they would be making policy."
Especially in cases where existing laws are unclear. It's really frustrating that the lefty blogs are doing a better fact checking job that the right. Much (if not most) of the objections to her nomination aren't really rooted in reality as far as I can tell. There's a lot of misinformation and as we've seen on this thread people are going to keep on repeating it even if it's not true.
| 789 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:53:12pm |
re: #782 reine.de.tout
We pretty much don't have a shelter (basement) to go to when there's a tornado, VX. We're stuck above ground. I'm in pink's corner on this.
Ah, that explains it. My sister has dealt with both, but she's never given me any indication which one is easier to get through--although both have their problems as natural disasters.
But hey, at least we don't have to deal with volcanoes except in the upper Northwest.
| 790 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 2:53:24pm |
re: #781 pink freud
Your reasoning is my very own, for hurricanes.
Clearly, God hates both you and vxbush, and is punishing you for your sinfulness.
| 791 |
brookly red Tue, May 26, 2009 2:54:50pm |
re: #745 Walter L. Newton
Are you looking for her nirth certificate?
/
/well anyone really from the Bronx would know that the 5 don't stop at the stadium :)
| 792 |
vxbush Tue, May 26, 2009 2:54:59pm |
re: #790 Occasional Reader
Clearly, God hates both you and vxbush, and is punishing you for your sinfulness.
Heh. G-d doesn't have to use a tornado or hurricane to do that. All he has to do is have the cats start fighting when they are both sitting in my lap. That will do it.
| 793 |
RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY Tue, May 26, 2009 2:55:03pm |
re: #790 Occasional Reader
Clearly, God hates both you and vxbush, and is punishing you for your sinfulness.
Beat me to it!
Wheres a valcano to throw a virgin in when ya need one!
| 794 |
reine.de.tout Tue, May 26, 2009 2:55:44pm |
re: #788 Killgore Trout
Basically yes.....
Especially in cases where existing laws are unclear. It's really frustrating that the lefty blogs are doing a better fact checking job that the right. Much (if not most) of the objections to her nomination aren't really rooted in reality as far as I can tell. There's a lot of misinformation and as we've seen on this thread people are going to keep on repeating it even if it's not true.
thnx.
I need to keep checking out information.
A friend described her in a way that sounds like she's a slightly sharper Harriet Miers. I know Sotormayer doesn't SOUND all that great when she speaks; perhaps her writing is more clear.
| 795 |
Occasional Reader Tue, May 26, 2009 2:56:11pm |
re: #793 RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY
Beat me to it!
Wheres a valcano to throw a virgin in when ya need one!
These days, the volcano is the easier of the two to find.
/rimshot
| 797 |
RELOADINGISNOTAHOBBY Tue, May 26, 2009 2:57:51pm |
re: #795 Occasional Reader
I'm in Utah O.R........
I'll have to check into it!
| 798 |
Lynn B. Tue, May 26, 2009 3:13:07pm |
re: #134 Flyers1974
Did you know that Judge Bork has stated that he does not believe the second amendment applies to individuals (although privately being pro-gun.)
Nor does he believe that the first amendment mandates separation of church and state (and he dismisses Jefferson's Danbury letter as out of touch with the founding fathers' principles).
| 799 |
loppyd Tue, May 26, 2009 3:17:08pm |
re: #733 SixDegrees
Which is a meaningless, bullshit metric used by absolutely no one.
You're attempting to conflate this bogus measurement with her reversal rate (reversals/total number of cases heard) and her appeals rate (appeals/total number of cases heard). There isn't even a name for the measurement you're proposing.
Stop shoveling this manure. It cannot and will not help anything. It will only succeed in making Conservatives look like knuckle-dragging morons.
Being reversed by the Supreme Court on the majority of your opinions is meaningless? In your world maybe.
I know district court judges on the county level who are horrified when they get flipped by any upper court.
| 800 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 3:19:32pm |
re: #695 Sharmuta
Sonia Sotomayor rulings via wiki:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
She stopped the baseball strike, got the Vince Foster suicide note released to WSJ, opposed group strip searches, opposed an employee firing for mailing racist emails from home, etc
From the Wiki page she seems like a moderate, but those could be just the "good cases"
| 801 |
Lynn B. Tue, May 26, 2009 3:20:40pm |
Late to the thread as usual.
My problems with Sotomayor are unrelated to anything I've heard or read about her in the past few days (as this thread is about all I've seen in terms of analysis since the announcement was made). She has never appeared to me to possess what they call a "judicial temperament" and some of the remarks discussed here, I think, reflect that.
That said, I'll try to keep an open mind. I've been surprised before.
| 802 |
Buck Tue, May 26, 2009 3:23:59pm |
re: #235 zombie
Say what? Imagine a white judge saying "I expect to make some rulings based on my white heritage." He'd be political toast. (Lightly done Wonder Bread toast, but toast nonetheless.)
He doesn't SAY it, but he does it.... it is so common that he doesn't have to say it.
| 803 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 3:24:44pm |
re: #798 Lynn B.
Nor does he believe that the first amendment mandates separation of church and state (and he dismisses Jefferson's Danbury letter as out of touch with the founding fathers' principles).
Robert Bork has theocratic tendencies, and is a creationist, and I for one am glad that this person was never confirmed to the Supreme Court.
| 804 |
Randall Gross Tue, May 26, 2009 3:29:02pm |
re: #788 Killgore Trout
Basically yes.....
Especially in cases where existing laws are unclear. It's really frustrating that the lefty blogs are doing a better fact checking job that the right. Much (if not most) of the objections to her nomination aren't really rooted in reality as far as I can tell. There's a lot of misinformation and as we've seen on this thread people are going to keep on repeating it even if it's not true.
One quibble, let's not confuse "precedent" and "policy". The distinction is moot in the bulk of cases but when you get into constitutional cases involving differing branches of gov't (exec vs congress, or congress vs. state) then the distinction between the two becomes clear.
| 805 |
Sosigado Tue, May 26, 2009 3:30:45pm |
The conclusion of this analysis seems to be that Sotomayor is a stronger candidate for the Supreme Court in many ways than Samuel Alito was.
Now that's really putting lipstick on the proverbial pig. She's a counter-Constitutionalist, pure and simple. She's also a pretty poor jurist, to boot. I guess that if you feel that The Constitution is a tired, old document written by a bunch of tired, old, irrelevant white guys, then Sotomayor is the ideal pick. The social reengineering of America begins in earnest, starting today.
| 806 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 3:35:50pm |
re: #805 Sosigado
Now that's really putting lipstick on the proverbial pig. She's a counter-Constitutionalist, pure and simple. She's also a pretty poor jurist, to boot. I guess that if you feel that The Constitution is a tired, old document written by a bunch of tired, old, irrelevant white guys, then Sotomayor is the ideal pick. The social reengineering of America begins in earnest, starting today.
That's nonsense. A direct quote:
At a Senate hearing in 1997 before she was confirmed to the appeals court, Sotomayor was asked by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., whether she would "read additional rights into the Constitution" such as a right to homosexual conduct by a prisoner.
"I cannot do it," she replied. "The Constitution is what it is. We cannot read rights into them. They have been created for us."
| 807 |
theheat Tue, May 26, 2009 3:43:12pm |
re: #91 Rednek
The thing that bugs me about her, is that a candiate for the Supreme Court would trail off a sentence with a half formed thought, and a summary "...you know".How would that sound at the end of an empathetic rulling?
We have a history of POTUSes and VPs that have gaffed far worse ;-)
| 808 |
ShanghaiEd Tue, May 26, 2009 3:44:35pm |
re: #348 Nevergiveup
Look we all have prejudices we bring to how we see things. You try to be as intellectually honest as you can and minimize them, but we are what we are. I do not like her as a nominee because I think she will be ultra liberal and legislate from the bench mixing her "empathy" with a sprinkle of law ( or the other way around depending on your point of view).
I think there's an element of disingenuousness (not you, personally) to this approach. Ask 100 conservatives who support an openly conservative justice for any bench whether they hope he/she will make a difference for the better (i.e., more conservative) in the law during his/her tenure, and I'm saying if they speak confidentially and not for attribution it's a landslide for "yes." Very noble to pretend otherwise, but it's only pretending.
| 809 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 4:00:12pm |
re: #800 Thanos
She stopped the baseball strike, got the Vince Foster suicide note released to WSJ, opposed group strip searches, opposed an employee firing for mailing racist emails from home, etc
From the Wiki page she seems like a moderate, but those could be just the "good cases"
I agree -- she does look like a moderate from the decisions listed at Wiki. Also note that she upheld Bush's Mexico City Policy of not funding abortions outside the US, which should please the social conservatives, except that they're too busy being outraged at the moment.
| 810 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 4:01:34pm |
re: #800 Thanos
She stopped the baseball strike, got the Vince Foster suicide note released to WSJ, opposed group strip searches, opposed an employee firing for mailing racist emails from home, etc
From the Wiki page she seems like a moderate, but those could be just the "good cases"
Yes- she's striking me as a moderate, although I would still like to see more of her decisions.
| 811 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 4:05:41pm |
re: #806 Charles
And I think that quote is what we'd want to hear from any nominee, but no one wants to hear it, Charles. Shhhhhh!
| 812 |
Gus Tue, May 26, 2009 4:06:54pm |
re: #809 Charles
I agree -- she does look like a moderate from the decisions listed at Wiki. Also note that she upheld Bush's Mexico City Policy of not funding abortions outside the US, which should please the social conservatives, except that they're too busy being outraged at the moment.
Federal judicial service
Labeled a political centrist by the American Bar Association Journal and others, Sotomayor was nominated on November 27, 1991, by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York vacated by John M. Walker, Jr. She became the youngest judge in the Southern District and the first Hispanic federal judge anywhere in New York State.
Abortion
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration’s implementation of the “Mexico City Policy” which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations”. Sotomayor held 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”.
This is the text of the decision: Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush
| 813 |
Sosigado Tue, May 26, 2009 4:32:03pm |
| 814 |
Ezekiel2517 Tue, May 26, 2009 4:33:37pm |
When held up against Souter, this will probably be a zero sum appointment. Does anyone really expect The One to nominate someone who would shift the court to the right?
| 815 |
Lokotes Tue, May 26, 2009 4:41:49pm |
Looks like poor ol' Posner got it wrong, dead wrong. Earlier today, Powerline posted the "lawyers' evaluation" of Judge Sotomayor that appears in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. The evaluation, based on interviews with lawyers who have appeared before Sotomayor, was favorable on the whole, but hardly glowing.
To see what a glowing evaluation looks like, check out the lawyers' evaluation of Samuel Alito at the time he was nominated for the Supreme Court. (Like Sotomayor, Alito was a federal court of appeals judge then):
Lawyers interviewed praised Alito's legal acumen. "He is exceptional." "He has brilliant ability." "He is even more exceptional than Becker. He is a brilliant jurist." "To say he is outstanding is to use understatement. He's the best judge on the circuit, maybe the country." "His ability is very, very, very good. Very seriously, he's very bright." "He's pretty good in terms of making a coherent argument." "He is very smart." "He is brilliant and of unquestioned intelligence."
| 816 |
Buck Tue, May 26, 2009 4:54:41pm |
re: #813 Sosigado
She's a counter-Constitutionalist, pure and simple. She's also a pretty poor jurist, to boot. I guess that if you feel that The Constitution is a tired, old document written by a bunch of tired, old, irrelevant white guys, then Sotomayor is the ideal pick. The social reengineering of America begins in earnest, starting today.
My opinion is dismissed as "nonsense". So be it.
Didn't sound like opinion.
| 817 |
John Neverbend Tue, May 26, 2009 4:58:05pm |
re: #322 lawhawk
Some, like Cardozo are legend for their word smithing.
Here's an interesting item about Cardozo.
| 818 |
wrenchwench Tue, May 26, 2009 5:01:56pm |
re: #312 Occasional Reader
When, exactly, are a judge's prejudices "appropriate", in rendering a decision in a case?Sotomayor is asserting that they can be.
Do you agree?
OK, I'm back.
No, I don't think it is appropriate to render a decision based on one's prejudices. It sounds like she said it is. That speech has some hard-to-read passages, and I'd hate to pin her to what she said at UC Berkeley in 2001 in one speech, but I'm still trying to figure it out. This passage:
The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
might be what she is referring to when she said, "I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests [meaning the Minnesota Supreme Court?], continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."
The sentence that precedes the above passage is this: "Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging." That's one of those hard to parse parts. I think overall, she's acknowledging that one's gender and heritage affect one's point of view, and that it shouldn't affect one's judgment, but we should admit that it can and or does. Another quote, same speech:
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.
Anyway, I didn't want it to look like I ran out because the questions got hard.
| 819 |
SecondComing Tue, May 26, 2009 5:02:19pm |
To be honest I didn't expect much from the appointment. Looks like it could have been far worse. Plus if she's confirmed she'll be in a fraternity and will feel pressure not to pull anything crazy. Although she did look like a contestant chosen for The Price Is Right when Obama was introducing her. Sonia Sotomayor come on down you're the next contestant...
| 820 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 5:21:28pm |
re: #818 wrenchwench
I think there is something to be said for her words- a person's perceptions and thus their judgment can be colored by the events of their lives. If they've experienced discrimination, then this is going to affect their thinking. There's no point in denying our lives shape how we think. I'm not trying to excuse what she said- just trying to be honest.
That said- I'm not sure how much it's affected her decisions in cases before her. Unless I can see a clear cut example, then I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, as her other decisions seem fairly moderate. Even the more conservative Justices have supported a few of her decisions. As for the reversal rate- the 9th Circuit has everyone beat.
I'm just trying to be fair, and I think we'll learn a lot more in a few days. She's on record as saying she can't read rights into the Constitution, and she supported Bush on not funding international abortions with our money. Maybe, just maybe, she'll be alright.
| 821 |
seagreenroom Tue, May 26, 2009 5:49:48pm |
Somebody probably already posted this, but here's what she said...
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
She's not SCOTUS material.
Period.
| 822 |
kansas Tue, May 26, 2009 5:50:44pm |
re: #820 Sharmuta
I think there is something to be said for her words- a person's perceptions and thus their judgment can be colored by the events of their lives. If they've experienced discrimination, then this is going to affect their thinking. There's no point in denying our lives shape how we think. I'm not trying to excuse what she said- just trying to be honest.
That said- I'm not sure how much it's affected her decisions in cases before her. Unless I can see a clear cut example, then I want to give her the benefit of the doubt, as her other decisions seem fairly moderate. Even the more conservative Justices have supported a few of her decisions. As for the reversal rate- the 9th Circuit has everyone beat.
I'm just trying to be fair, and I think we'll learn a lot more in a few days. She's on record as saying she can't read rights into the Constitution, and she supported Bush on not funding international abortions with our money. Maybe, just maybe, she'll be alright.
Hopefully she didn't use her fingers to make quotation marks and wink or nod when she said that. Or smile when everyone laughed that she had said it.
| 823 |
Daria Emmons Tue, May 26, 2009 5:53:52pm |
Sotomayer does not look like the worst candidate on earth, but her comments about race and gender affecting her decisions were terrible. While it is true that one's life experiences affect one's decisions, the goal is to minimize one's personal beliefs as much as possible, so as to best render an impartial opinion. Sotomayer appears to embrace personal prejudices, rather than fight them. That is a problem.
| 824 |
Sharmuta Tue, May 26, 2009 6:11:46pm |
re: #822 kansas
Hopefully she didn't use her fingers to make quotation marks and wink or nod when she said that. Or smile when everyone laughed that she had said it.
She said this during her Senate Confirmation hearings, so I highly doubt she did so.
| 825 |
Pupdawg Tue, May 26, 2009 6:17:13pm |
More legislating from the bench dead ahead...and that'd be the biggest bench in the neighborhood, too.
| 826 |
Charles Johnson Tue, May 26, 2009 6:50:31pm |
re: #813 Sosigado
My opinion is dismissed as "nonsense". So be it.
Yes, nonsense. You accused Sotomayor of being a "counter-Constitutionalist," and she very clearly is not.
| 827 |
DebbieSym Tue, May 26, 2009 8:00:06pm |
The conclusion of this analysis seems to be that Sotomayor is a stronger candidate for the Supreme Court in many ways than Samuel Alito was.
I guess I didn't get that from the piece. Here's what I got:
Wood ranked eighth; Alito sixteenth. Sotomayor would be in the bottom half...
The bottom line is that Judge Sotomayor is about average, or maybe a bit below average, for a federal appellate judge.
This suggests that Alito was, in fact, a stronger candidate.
| 828 |
jc59 Tue, May 26, 2009 8:53:56pm |
Apart from the quality of the opinion, being reversed has something to do with who happens to be reviewing the opinion.
| 829 |
Pupdawg Wed, May 27, 2009 6:15:16am |
Seen it all now...finally, a Democrat who isn't cast as extremely intelligent and brilliant! Wonder how long it will take the MSM to reverse this? Bet her IQ is growing exponentially as I type with her MENSA membership package in the mail.
I seem to recall when GW nominated a Hispanic for the highest court position the Dems squashed the appointment for any number of reasons other than heritage or race, of course. But, I heard recently per the Dems it seems the GOP would be racist if they denied her the appointment. Democrats with the help of the Matrix run the same old play constantly.
| 830 |
Charles Johnson Wed, May 27, 2009 10:20:25am |
re: #828 jc59
Apart from the quality of the opinion, being reversed has something to do with who happens to be reviewing the opinion.
Absolutely right -- that was the point I made in this comment:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 831 |
jvic Wed, May 27, 2009 10:42:07am |
re: #829 Pupdawg
I seem to recall when GW nominated a Hispanic for the highest court position the Dems squashed the appointment for any number of reasons other than heritage or race, of course...
What Hispanic was that, Pupdawg? Here is a discussion of Bush's SCOTUS nominees (Sotomayor is mentioned in the piece, btw). Wikipedia is not authoritative; if they're wrong in this case, please name the Hispanic.
I wouldn't vote to confirm Sotomayor, but will concede this: with due respect to reine.de.tout #794, she seems clearly better qualified than Harriet Miers.
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
