BusinessWeek: Sotomayor’s a ‘Moderate on Business Issues’

Business • Views: 36,794

BusinessWeek analyzes Sonia Sotomayor’s record, and concludes that she’s A Moderate on Business Issues.

Federal Appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated May 26 by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court, has earned a centrist reputation in business cases: In 1995, she sided with Major League Baseball players in a confrontation with owners over free agency and arbitration, but 11 years later she rejected a petition by millions of investors that alleged rigging of initial public offerings in the dot-com boom. …

RULINGS ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES
“Judge Sotomayor has a track record of moderation on issues of importance to the business community,” said Evan M. Tager, an appeals specialist at Mayer Brown in Washington, D.C.

One issue certain to be raised by conservative U.S. senators in the confirmation process is the issue of punitive damages in civil suits. Tager, whose firm examined the records of the handful of top candidates to succeed retiring Justice David Souter, says that on the bench Sotomayor has “expressed unease” about large punitive awards, yet has upheld large awards “when the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is modest.” …

Such a position fits with the alignment of the court on business issues. In social and civil cases, the court has routinely split 4-4, on conservative-liberal lines, with one of the justices serving as a swing vote. But the lines have blurred significantly in business cases. “Based on her record, it is very likely that she will align herself with the more liberal side of the court” on social and civil cases, Dupree said. “[Yet] while no one would call Judge Sotomayor stridently pro-business, there are many business issues that cut across the traditional liberal and conservative ideological lines.”

In class actions, Sotomayor has occupied a strict middle ground, her record reflecting sympathy neither for those in favor of such issues, nor skepticism of them. “She looks at each case on its unique facts to determine whether a class action is appropriate,” said Tager.

CENTRIST ON PREEMPTION
Another hot-button issue is preemption, or the right of federal courts to step in to cases involving state law. Tager said on this issue, too, Sotomayor has been centrist. “She has been evenhanded in cases raising federal preemption as a defense, finding preemption about half of the time and rejecting preemption about half of the time,” Tager said.

Read the whole thing…

Jump to bottom

457 comments
1 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:00:21am

*GASP* Oh horrors! A "moderate"!

We can't have THAT!

/ is it sarcasm, or is it memorex?

2 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:01:16am

A moderate replacing a moderate.

3 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:01:39am

I can't be first, but I can be next.

4 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:02:01am

re: #2 Sharmuta

A moderate replacing a moderate.

Not my ideal, but then better than one more ideological akin to Obama.

5 Lee Coller  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:02:31am

re: #2 Sharmuta

A moderate replacing a moderate.

I don't think I'd classify Souter as a moderate.

6 jaunte  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:03:10am

“She looks at each case on its unique facts to determine whether a class action is appropriate,” said Tager.

Well, we certainly can't have that.

7 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:03:24am

re: #4 FurryOldGuyJeans

Not my ideal, but then better than one more ideological akin to Obama.

The overall balance of the court is going to stay the same. As long as a more conservative Justice doesn't leave a vacancy, I think will be okay.

8 Bloodnok  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:03:36am

B-b-b-but.....What about the 150% Reversal Rate?

/

9 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:03:38am

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions, plain vanilla racist.

Tracking better all the time.

10 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:04:22am

OH NOES!now the commies have taken over BUSINESS WEEK..............

11 pat  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:04:36am

She was merely following the Supreme Court's guidelines. As she should have. I doubt that she will be so kind when in charge. frankly Business Week, a NewsWeak publication, has previously misled its readers in pushing a liberal agenda. I believe this is a very soft story designed to bolster Obama.

12 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:05:09am

re: #7 Sharmuta

The overall balance of the court is going to stay the same. As long as a more conservative Justice doesn't leave a vacancy, I think will be okay.

The only sticking point I really have is the longevity, maintaining a moderate viewpoint. But a moderate is better than having someone more ideological closer to Obama's ideas and ideals.

13 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:05:13am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions, plain vanilla racist.

Tracking better all the time.

Walters just a glass half full kind of guy.

14 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:05:39am

re: #3 BatGuano

I can't be first, but I can be next.

No ya can't.

15 Bob Dillon  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:05:42am

I would really like to know her take on Obama's takeover of GM and Chrysler.

16 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:05:47am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

She's ruled pro-life twice. There's also the Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford case.

17 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:06:15am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions, plain vanilla racist.

Tracking better all the time.

I doubt it will temper the tantrum the far right-wing is having. They are opposing this simply because it is Obama making the pick.

18 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:06:16am

Considering this is an Obama appointment I think conservatives got lucky this time.

19 KingKenrod  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:06:42am

Sotomayor seems like the best we can get with Obama as President. I think she may at least (once in a blue moon) side differently than Souter would, which is a good thing.

20 Lee Coller  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:06:46am

Just once I'd like to see a Democrat President make the same mistake Bush did with Souter.

21 Bloodnok  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:06:59am

re: #11 pat

She was merely following the Supreme Court's guidelines. As she should have. I doubt that she will be so kind when in charge. frankly Business Week, a NewsWeak publication, has previously misled its readers in pushing a liberal agenda. I believe this is a very soft story designed to bolster Obama.

How will she be in charge? She will be the junior Justice of a 9 member group.

22 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:07:14am

re: #20 Lee Coller

Just once I'd like to see a Democrat President make the same mistake Bush did with Souter.

This might be it.

23 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:07:24am

re: #13 unrealizedviewpoint

Walters just a glass half full kind of guy.

Right now half a glass is better than an empty glass, which realistically is what O and the Dem-controlled Congress could serve us.

24 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:08:11am

re: #13 unrealizedviewpoint

Walters just a glass half full kind of guy.

My point being (which I suspect you already understand) that I don't care if she has a gold plated left leg here, her apparent racism and raced based decision making tendencies is enough to make me totally against her nomination.

As soon as I see some proof that she doesn't track toward a racial preference mentality, then I will gladly change my mind.

As of this point, nothing in the race category has changed.

25 IslandLibertarian  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:08:35am

When the "business" is gun ownership:
In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

/disturbing

26 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:08:41am

re: #22 Sharmuta

This might be it.

Judges have been known to change once they put on the SCOTUS robe.

27 Bob Dillon  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:08:57am

re: #22 Sharmuta

This might be it.

I can see her tightening her act up if confirmed. History is watching and she would have a unique place in line.

28 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:10:06am

re: #16 Sharmuta

She's ruled pro-life twice. There's also the Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford case.

I don't care, I'm only interest in one issue, and that is her apparent raced based mentality and how it has colored her decisions in the past and how she has highlighted those feelings in her papers, speeches and interviews.

29 Bob Dillon  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:10:29am

re: #25 IslandLibertarian

When the "business" is gun ownership:
In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

/disturbing

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
scotusblog.com

30 big steve  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:10:48am

I put this in the links earlier. I got to wondering if I could better educate myself on the controversey involving Judge Sotomayor and the Ricci v Destefano case (the white firefighters). So I got to the Supreme Court oral arguments on this

[Link: www.supremecourtus.gov...]

When you actually read the Supreme Court Justice's questions on the oral argument, you realize that there is much more to this than blantant reverse discrimination. I am not sure how they will rule, but it is worth the 20 minutes reading just to see if you get your opinion changed.

31 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:11:38am

re: #14 debutaunt

No ya can't.

You're right. :(

32 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:12:18am

re: #23 FurryOldGuyJeans

Right now half a glass is better than an empty glass, which realistically is what O and the Dem-controlled Congress could serve us.

A glass half-filled with a racist is a glass that I refuse to drink from. Maybe that doesn't bother you. Not once have you responded to my concerns about here apparent raced based mentality and how it possibly colors her past and future decision making.

33 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:12:56am

Still not sure where all the right-wing outrage is coming from on this pick. Clearly Obama had the opportunity to reach much farther left with this pick than Sotomayor. From the few cases I've had a chance to read about she has shown herself to be pretty centrist. You'd think the GOP would recognize the rope-a-dope they're walking into, realize resistance is futile and get this over with quickly and painlessly.

34 ckb  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:13:14am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions, plain vanilla racist.

Tracking better all the time.

Brilliantly done, sir.

35 pjaicomo  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:14:38am

re: #22 Sharmuta

This might be it.

I have a feeling you're right.

36 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:14:43am

re: #33 drcordell

Still not sure where all the right-wing outrage is coming from on this pick. Clearly Obama had the opportunity to reach much farther left with this pick than Sotomayor. From the few cases I've had a chance to read about she has shown herself to be pretty centrist. You'd think the GOP would recognize the rope-a-dope they're walking into, realize resistance is futile and get this over with quickly and painlessly.

I realize only one thing, her apparent racism and raced based decision making tendencies is enough to make me totally against her nomination.

Of course she is going to get nominated, especially since our weak and almost worthless conservative politicians have no interest in anything right now.

37 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:15:02am

re: #25 IslandLibertarian

When the "business" is gun ownership:
In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

/disturbing

[Link: volokh.com...]

38 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:15:25am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions

I do feel the need to correct this particular meme. She is not (necessarily) "against" doing that, or "for" the Mexico City Rule; she just wrote an opinion that slapped down a seemingly pretty silly "equal protection" argument that the government couldn't use the Mexico City Rule. This does not necessarily reflect anything at all regarding her own views on abortion, or even her views on Roe and its progeny. (No pun intended with that "progeny" bit.)

39 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:15:51am

re: #32 Walter L. Newton

A glass half-filled with a racist is a glass that I refuse to drink from. Maybe that doesn't bother you. Not once have you responded to my concerns about here apparent raced based mentality and how it possibly colors her past and future decision making.

Why address your concerns when it makes not a whit of difference on her being confirmed or not?

If all I had to go on was what blogs and right-wing pundits are reporting I'd be appalled.

40 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:15:59am

re: #33 drcordell

So true. Brilliant.

41 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:16:42am

re: #33 drcordell

Still not sure where all the right-wing outrage is coming from on this pick. Clearly Obama had the opportunity to reach much farther left with this pick than Sotomayor. From the few cases I've had a chance to read about she has shown herself to be pretty centrist. You'd think the GOP would recognize the rope-a-dope they're walking into, realize resistance is futile and get this over with quickly and painlessly.

Many are spoiling for a fight. Any fight, every fight.

42 Big Steve  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:17:20am

re: #36 Walter L. Newton

I realize only one thing, her apparent racism and raced based decision making tendencies is enough to make me totally against her nomination.


Walter....is your concern on racism based on the 2002 speech, the Ricci v Destefano case, both, or more items than that (asked honestly)

43 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:17:20am

re: #41 Sharmuta

Many are spoiling for a fight. Any fight, every fight.

And the left is cheering and egging the right on.

44 Dave the.....  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:17:52am

Sooooooo maybe in his haste to get a member of a liberal protected group in the seat, Barry may actually be nominating a moderate? Could it backfire on him (like Souter did for Bush)?

45 opnion  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:18:08am

re: #38 Occasional Reader

I do feel the need to correct this particular meme. She is not (necessarily) "against" doing that, or "for" the Mexico City Rule; she just wrote an opinion that slapped down a seemingly pretty silly "equal protection" argument that the government couldn't use the Mexico City Rule. This does not necessarily reflect anything at all regarding her own views on abortion, or even her views on Roe and its progeny. (No pun intended with that "progeny" bit.)

Right, it would be unrealistic to think that given Obama's record that we would nominate any justice that was not in favor of Roe V Wade.

46 Macker  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:18:36am

re: #20 Lee Coller

Just once I'd like to see a Democrat President make the same mistake Bush did with Souter.

Now THAT would call for a "Shocka!" headline from Charles, should that occur!

47 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:18:38am

re: #43 FurryOldGuyJeans

And the left is cheering and egging the right on.

The left has gone all marionette on us.

48 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:18:41am

I guess I am just missing something.

Take the following statement from the article:

Another hot-button issue is preemption, or the right of federal courts to step in to cases involving state law. Tager said on this issue, too, Sotomayor has been centrist. “She has been evenhanded in cases raising federal preemption as a defense, finding preemption about half of the time and rejecting preemption about half of the time,” Tager said.

I have posted on this several times since yesterday. I see Solomayor as a mediocre judge with nothing exceptional in her work that will make her much of a contributor to the court.

"finding preemption about half of the time and rejecting preemption about half of the time" doesn't tell me she is a centrist. It tells me that she makes judgments based on criteria that don't seem to involve applying consistent tests to the application of the law.

That isn't good. Judges with a "random" setting create more lawsuits because someone with a bad case will go to trial because it is a free lottery ticket. When you make the application of law unpredictable you undermine a lawful society.

That is centrist?

I'd much rather have a Ginsberg or Stevens who will lay down a fairly consistent rationale - not one I am disposed to agree with, but one that I can use to predict an outcome.

Sotomayor is mediocre. The fact that such gets framed as "centrist" speaks volumes about common ignorance of the judiciary and its impact on our lives.

We get the government we vote for.

49 KingKenrod  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:18:56am

re: #24 Walter L. Newton

My point being (which I suspect you already understand) that I don't care if she has a gold plated left leg here, her apparent racism and raced based decision making tendencies is enough to make me totally against her nomination.

As soon as I see some proof that she doesn't track toward a racial preference mentality, then I will gladly change my mind.

As of this point, nothing in the race category has changed.

I read the entire speech she gave (the "better than a white male" speech) and found it extremely troubling from an identity politics standpoint. She seems very big on equality of results instead of equality of opportunity. She speaks a lot about how justice will change once parity is achieved for minorities and women.

The speech is here:

[Link: www.berkeley.edu...]

It's not the kind of thing you want to read if you believe in a blind judiciary.

50 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:18:59am

re: #25 IslandLibertarian

When the "business" is gun ownership:
In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

/disturbing

Those wacky Framers, just throwing in silly verbiage in the Bill of Rights that had absolutely no meaning at all. The 2nd is kind of like Seinfeld: It's an Amendment about nothing!

/

51 Russkilitlover  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:19:12am

Driveby post on way to meeting.

I guess most of you folks don't have a problem with her being a card carrying member of La Raza? What if there were a Supreme Court nominee who was a regular poster at Atlas Shrugs or Jihad Watch? Would that bother you?

Just askin'.

52 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:19:17am

re: #28 Walter L. Newton

Right. Speeches and interviews. When you look through her rulings, try and find an example where she has let her "empathy" for a Plaintiff color her legal judgement. There isn't much there to work with.

Take Norville v. Staten Island University Hospital for example. The plaintiff was an aging black Haitian immigrant nurse suing her hospital over being fired for an injury she sustained while attempting to help a man having a seizure. Can't really find a more sympathetic plaintiff than that. Yet Sotomayor threw most of the Plaintiffs evidence out as inadmissible.

Perhaps more will come out as people have had time to comb through hundreds of her rulings, but right now there really isn't much to substantiate the claim that she lets her "empathy" get the best of her.

53 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:19:20am

re: #39 FurryOldGuyJeans

Why address your concerns when it makes not a whit of difference on her being confirmed or not?

If all I had to go on was what blogs and right-wing pundits are reporting I'd be appalled.

I'm not asking you to respond to the right wing blogs and all the silly shit that is going on in some of the blog world. I'm asking you to respond to my factual and rational comments.

Don't you have a problem with judges that seem to be inclined to make race-based decisions?

Evidently not.

54 ConservatismNow!  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:19:22am

re: #25 IslandLibertarian

When the "business" is gun ownership:
In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

/disturbing

Aaaand we refer her to Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller Case.

55 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:20:15am

re: #53 Walter L. Newton

I'm not asking you to respond to the right wing blogs and all the silly shit that is going on in some of the blog world. I'm asking you to respond to my factual and rational comments.

Don't you have a problem with judges that seem to be inclined to make race-based decisions?

Evidently not.

You'd be wrong, but I won't stop you from making assumptions.

56 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:20:24am

re: #27 Bobibutu

I can see her tightening her act up if confirmed. History is watching and she would have a unique place in line.

Exactly. Here's a tidbit I find interesting:

On environmental law, Sotomayor was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in a high-profile case in which she ruled that a law requiring companies to use the best available technology to prevent endangered animals from being sucked into water intakes in power plants, for example, meant just that.

Millett said that decision does not necessarily indicate a hard-line attitude by Sotomayor toward the environment. "She was taking the statute at its word, so I don't think you can really read much into it," Millett said.

She read the law literally. She's also on record during her first confirmation process to the appellate court that she would not read rights into the Constitution. Positive signs, imo.

57 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:20:26am
58 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:20:33am

Another Sotomayor ruling on abortion seems to indicate that she's not exactly a dangerous left-wing radical on this issue either: Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War:

She has also ruled in favor of antiabortion protesters who sued West Hartford, Conn., claiming that police there used excessive force against them at a demonstration.

59 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:20:42am

re: #23 FurryOldGuyJeans seeing as how such a leftist mag as BUSINESS WEEK approves this nomination with flying colors, i am going to up my US senate prediction(old prediction was 72 BI-PARTISAN senate votes) to more REPUBLICANS will SUPPORT her than OPPOSE her in the senate

60 Russkilitlover  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:21:30am

re: #42 Big Steve

Walter....is your concern on racism based on the 2002 speech, the Ricci v Destefano case, both, or more items than that (asked honestly)

For me, it's her membership in La Raza. Deal killer.

BBIAW

61 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:21:31am

re: #51 Russkilitlover

Driveby post on way to meeting.

I guess most of you folks don't have a problem with her being a card carrying member of La Raza? What if there were a Supreme Court nominee who was a regular poster at Atlas Shrugs or Jihad Watch? Would that bother you?

Just askin'.

I've seen this punted about all morning. Is there a link to this? (Not Hot Air or another similar one, please.) If true, then this may not be a good thing. I would consider La Raza on par with Stormfront or the Vlaams Belang. All disgusting, IMHO.

62 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:21:41am

re: #55 FurryOldGuyJeans

You'd be wrong, but I won't stop you from making assumptions.

Well, if you don't respond, and just parrot pithy statement, then how in the hell can I know. I have to go with the obvious.

63 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:21:48am

Moderates is evil. Purge!

64 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:22:00am

re: #51 Russkilitlover

Driveby post on way to meeting.

I guess most of you folks don't have a problem with her being a card carrying member of La Raza? What if there were a Supreme Court nominee who was a regular poster at Atlas Shrugs or Jihad Watch? Would that bother you?

Just askin'.

Did you have a similar problem when Karl Rove addressed the National Council of La Raza meeting in 2006? Or when John McCain spoke to them during his campaign?

65 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:22:30am

re: #59 gtrs

seeing as how such a leftist mag as BUSINESS WEEK approves this nomination with flying colors, i am going to up my US senate prediction(old prediction was 72 BI-PARTISAN senate votes) to more REPUBLICANS will SUPPORT her than OPPOSE her in the senate

Now THAT I can agree with, telling our representatives how we feel about this nomination.

66 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:22:57am

Here is an awesome article that explains why Sotomayor is a moderate, why liberals and conservatives both might dislike her appointment-- and most crucially, why she's actually the best pick that conservatives could possibly get:
[Link: www.tnr.com...]

money quote:
"As for Republican senators, they have to ask if it's worth alienating Latino voters to wage a fierce battle against a woman who is, from their point of view, the best nominee Obama was likely to give them."

And yeah, it's EJ Dionne and TNR, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

67 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:23:03am

re: #50 Occasional Reader

Those wacky Framers, just throwing in silly verbiage in the Bill of Rights that had absolutely no meaning at all. The 2nd is kind of like Seinfeld: It's an Amendment about nothing!

/

"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."

Nancy Pelosi probably wasn't making a reference to your guns in that statement.

68 Russkilitlover  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:23:08am

re: #64 Charles

Did you have a similar problem when Karl Rove addressed the National Council of La Raza meeting in 2006? Or when John McCain spoke to them during his campaign?

They were election year pandering. Not card carrying members. Big difference. Huge.

69 Macker  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:23:19am

re: #64 Charles

I did..

70 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:23:50am

re: #48 karmic_inquisitor

I don't disagree with you on the rule of law, but it's a much deeper problem with civic ignorance than just that concerning the Judicial Branch.

71 DaddyG  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:23:58am

re: #20 Lee Coller

Just once I'd like to see a Democrat President make the same mistake Bush did with Souter.

Unfotunately proximity to the beltway does not traditionally have the effect of making political appointees more conservative.

72 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:24:14am
73 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:24:19am

re: #53 Walter L. Newton

I'm not asking you to respond to the right wing blogs and all the silly shit that is going on in some of the blog world. I'm asking you to respond to my factual and rational comments.

Don't you have a problem with judges that seem to be inclined to make race-based decisions?

Evidently not.

Let me get this for you Furry :)
The first sentence was the key.

Why address your concerns when it makes not a whit of difference on her being confirmed or not?


I suspect many folks feel this same way.

74 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:24:28am

re: #58 Charles

Another Sotomayor ruling on abortion seems to indicate that she's not exactly a dangerous left-wing radical on this issue either: Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War:

She has also ruled in favor of antiabortion protesters who sued West Hartford, Conn., claiming that police there used excessive force against them at a demonstration

Of course... based on that description, it wasn't really a ruling "on abortion". Just sayin'.

(Not that I have much of a dog in the abortion fight, but I think it's misleading to suggest that Sotomayor has taken a "pro-life" stance, based on what I've seen.)

75 opnion  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:24:29am

re: #51 Russkilitlover

Driveby post on way to meeting.

I guess most of you folks don't have a problem with her being a card carrying member of La Raza? What if there were a Supreme Court nominee who was a regular poster at Atlas Shrugs or Jihad Watch? Would that bother you?

Just askin'.

Her La Raza membership is troubling. Imagine if Bush had sent up a nominee that belonged to the John Birch Society.

76 Dave the.....  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:24:32am
I have posted on this several times since yesterday. I see Solomayor as a mediocre judge with nothing exceptional in her work that will make her much of a contributor to the court.

I would rather have a mediocre judge who is somewhat ineffective then a brilliant but hard left person in there.

Yes, it creates the free lottery wins (I use that analogy all the time with lawsuit lottery.....OT, but local family won $20,000,000 because their drunk son drove around the downed gates at a railroad crossing and killed himself and 3 others in the car....but hey, that train shouldn't have been there). But it may create less major bad precedence setting rulings.

77 Danny  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:24:48am

I hope Business Week fails.

78 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:25:01am

re: #58 Charles

Another Sotomayor ruling on abortion seems to indicate that she's not exactly a dangerous left-wing radical on this issue either: Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War:

My re: #9 Walter L. Newton is still holding up.

79 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:25:16am

re: #68 Russkilitlover

They were election year pandering. Not card carrying members. Big difference. Huge.

So you think that Rove and McCain would give speeches to a racist hate group?

The fact that top GOP politicians seem to give them a fair hearing doesn't change your assessment at all?

80 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:25:56am

If Ms. Sotomayor is a centrist on business issues, then that is surely a comfort to all the white men out there who may fear her avowed judicial superiority and lack of objectivity.

81 IslandLibertarian  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:25:57am

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory,” he said. He wants someone with “that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles.”

“If we can find people who have life experience, and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court,”

Feeeeeeeeeeeelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeeeeeelings....................

82 shmuli  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:25:58am

Business Week is hardly a moderate voice. That rag has become the "People Magazine" of the Business media. Its left-center stance on issues of importance to business does not even track Chamber of Commerce interests. I will wait for Forbes to agree that she is a moderate on Business issues before taking anything printed in Business Week for granted.

83 DaddyG  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:01am

re: #72 Iron Fist

I voted against Obama. I'd have done it twice if I could have.

You have not excuse. There were plenty of ACORN volunteers available to register you 72 times.

84 JohnnyReb  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:07am

re: #43 FurryOldGuyJeans

And the left is cheering and egging the right on.

Anything to take the heat off of Pelosi and her foot in mouth antics.

85 ckb  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:10am

re: #61 Honorary Yooper

I've seen this punted about all morning. Is there a link to this? (Not Hot Air or another similar one, please.) If true, then this may not be a good thing. I would consider La Raza on par with Stormfront or the Vlaams Belang. All disgusting, IMHO.

It is listed on her Amercan Bar Association page.

86 MrSilverDragon  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:23am

re: #71 DaddyG

Unfotunately proximity to the beltway does not traditionally have the effect of making political appointees more conservative.

As I live in Maryland, right next to that beltway, I could not agree more.

87 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:44am

re: #64 Charles

Did you have a similar problem when Karl Rove addressed the National Council of La Raza meeting in 2006? Or when John McCain spoke to them during his campaign?

I do now, since I didn't know about it before. If they did it, it still doesn't make it right for her association. That's silly.

88 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:48am

re: #74 Occasional Reader

Of course... based on that description, it wasn't really a ruling "on abortion". Just sayin'.

(Not that I have much of a dog in the abortion fight, but I think it's misleading to suggest that Sotomayor has taken a "pro-life" stance, based on what I've seen.)

I'm not suggesting that -- I'm saying that she hasn't taken obviously pro-abortion stances in anything I've been able to find. It's not clear where she stands on abortion, but the few decisions she has made seem to indicate that she's not a radical on the issue.

89 The Shadow Do  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:59am

A footnote on N.C. of La Raza –

Years back (10-15?) I had a business acquaintance that in time became a good friend. I came to find out that he had a position with La Raza, an organization that I thought was sort of out there but knew little about.

One thing I did learn; annually there is a meeting of Medal of Honor winners and La Raza was a sponsor. My friend headed up their participation. One year he invited me along as a guest. This was one of the most memorable days of my life being able to spend the day mixing with these incredible heroes.

There is an amazing history of Latino military heroism and I cheer La Raza for honoring not just Latino but all MOH wearers.

My point, I guess, is that there is too much taken away some times from all the bombastic political and racial back and forth that goes on.

90 Macker  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:26:59am

re: #81 IslandLibertarian

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory,” he said. He wants someone with “that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles.”

“If we can find people who have life experience, and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court,”

Feeeeeeeeeeeelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeeeeeelings....................

DAMMIT! I don't have a good mp3 of this song. FRAK!

91 KenJen  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:27:03am

re: #51 Russkilitlover

Driveby post on way to meeting.

I guess most of you folks don't have a problem with her being a card carrying member of La Raza? What if there were a Supreme Court nominee who was a regular poster at Atlas Shrugs or Jihad Watch? Would that bother you?

Just askin'.

Sotomayor has a way with L-A-R-A-Z-A. Doesn't quite work does it?

92 Russkilitlover  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:27:14am

re: #79 Charles

So you think that Rove and McCain would give speeches to a racist hate group?

The fact that top GOP politicians seem to give them a fair hearing doesn't change your assessment at all?

Bothered the crap out of me, but it's a moot point - neither is in office. This is a position to the freaking Supreme Court. I have a problem with it. Just as you would if the nominee posted regularly at Atlas Shrugs or Jihad Watch.

93 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:27:15am

re: #77 Danny

I hope Business Week fails.

nice carryover. :)

94 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:27:21am

re: #80 Spare O'Lake

If Ms. Sotomayor is a centrist on business issues, then that is surely a comfort to all the white men out there who may fear her avowed judicial superiority and lack of objectivity.

Brilliant.

95 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:27:21am

re: #62 Walter L. Newton

Well, if you don't respond, and just parrot pithy statement, then how in the hell can I know. I have to go with the obvious.

My opposition to her will do absolutely nothing to stop her being confirmed. Time for us to be a whole lot wiser in picking the battles we can win instead of wasting all our resources simply to oppose.

I have already relayed my opposition to Sotomeyer, and my reasons why, to my two Senators from Washington State. Yet to hear a word back.

96 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:27:23am

re: #83 DaddyG

Register him to vote 72 times as Mickey Mouse, not allow him to vote 72 times.

/ACORN FAIL

97 StillAMarine  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:27:54am

The more I read and hear about Sonia Sotomayor, the more I believe that it would be foolhardy for Conservatives to contest her appointment too aggressively.
Primus: she is going to get in, no matter how bitter the debate.
Secundus: Anybody else Obama chooses would almost certainly be much worse.
Tertius: A bitter debate would only result in further alienating Hispanic voters.
The MSM would gleefully jump on an acrimonious confirmation disputation, pinning the "racist" label to Conservatives, while ignoring how badly the left savaged Mr. Gonzales, another Hispanic who comes from an even humbler background than does Ms. Sotomayor.

(Howzzat for somebody who flunked high school Latin?)

98 Macker  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:28:10am

re: #84 JohnnyReb

Anything to take the heat off of Pelosi Пелоси and her foot in mouth antics.

There, fixed that for ya! But I repeat myself....

99 Dave the.....  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:28:20am

When she was in Princeton, she complained that there weren't enough professors there with "Chicano surnames".

Hmmm, I'm in grad school now. I've had three Indians, a Greek, an Israel, and 3 Americans of non-Scandinavian descent as professors. Hey, I need some with surnames like Johnson, Olson, Larson, Olufson, Swenson or Anderson for me to feel welcome there. I call a strike!
//

100 Russkilitlover  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:28:32am

Dang it, now I'm late. BB

101 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:28:48am
102 Buck  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:29:08am

re: #3 BatGuano

I can't be first, but I can be next.

Every post is sacred.... and you wasted yours.

103 Danny  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:29:14am

re: #90 Macker

Hey, maybe Charles will post a Barry Manilow YouTube vid tonight!

104 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:29:28am

re: #84 JohnnyReb

Anything to take the heat off of Pelosi and her foot in mouth antics.

Have you read the latest?

Pelosi appeals for China's help on climate change

In answering a question from a student about how Pelosi was going to get Americans to cut back on their carbon emissions, the leading Democratic lawmaker said it was important to educate children on how to conserve energy and for citizens to build more environmentally friendly homes.

"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."

105 MrSilverDragon  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:29:40am

re: #103 Danny

Hey, maybe Charles will post a Barry Manilow YouTube vid tonight!

Doubt it, Charles has good taste in music.

106 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:30:38am

re: #92 Russkilitlover

Bothered the crap out of me, but it's a moot point - neither is in office. This is a position to the freaking Supreme Court.

And Karl Rove was the top adviser to the President of the United States, which is arguably an even more important position. Don't you think he would have refused to talk to La Raza, if it was perfectly clear that they're a racist hate group?

107 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:30:42am

Big moderation is ripping us off!

108 Macker  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:30:47am

re: #95 FurryOldGuyJeans

I have already relayed my opposition to Sotomeyer, and my reasons why, to my two Senators from Washington State. Yet to hear a word back.

I just wrote Senators McCain and Kyl about Sotomayor this morning. Judging from past experiences, I'll hear from Kyl, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, before I hear from McCain, who does not.

109 DaddyG  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:30:59am

re: #97 StillAMarine

(Howzzat for somebody who flunked high school Latin?)

Awesomus!

110 opnion  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:31:03am

re: #85 ckb

It is listed on her Amercan Bar Association page.

Yup, it's right in her ABA bio.

111 pink freud  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:31:08am

re: #58 Charles

Another Sotomayor ruling on abortion seems to indicate that she's not exactly a dangerous left-wing radical on this issue either: Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War:

Charles, that was not a ruling on abortion. It was a ruling on the right to protest and police force used during a demonstration.

"She has also ruled in favor of antiabortion protesters who sued West Hartford, Conn., claiming that police there used excessive force against them at a demonstration."

In no way was that an indication of her stand one way or the other on abortion; it was a ruling on police force.

112 Big Steve  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:31:39am

In spanish...

Soto = Thicket
Mayor = Boss or Chief

So she is the thicket boss.....sounds about right for being on the court.

113 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:32:00am
114 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:32:10am

re: #111 pink freud

Charles, that was not a ruling on abortion. It was a ruling on the right to protest and police force used during a demonstration.

"She has also ruled in favor of antiabortion protesters who sued West Hartford, Conn., claiming that police there used excessive force against them at a demonstration."

In no way was that an indication of her stand one way or the other on abortion; it was a ruling on police force.

Ok, I should have written "abortion-related ruling." It still suggests that she's not a radical on the issue.

115 jorline  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:32:32am

OT

Obama in L.A.: 'You ain't seen nothing yet'

LOS ANGELES — Even as he conceded there is still much hard work to do, President Obama was in a boastful mood Wednesday night, telling a star-studded crowd at a fundraising dinner that he "would put these first four months up against any prior administration since FDR."

"We didn't ask for the challenges that we face, but we don't shrink from them either," he said. "It won't be easy. There will be setbacks. It will take time."

The president conceded that his administration "had our fits and starts."

But Obama said in promising to continue to work hard, "Los Angeles, you ain't seen nothing yet."

My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord...
///

116 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:32:37am

re: #104 FurryOldGuyJeans

"We have so much room for improvement," she said. "Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory ... of how we are taking responsibility."

I think it's great when our elected officials express a desire to regulate "every aspect of our lives", don't you? It really shows they care.

117 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:33:04am

re: #89 The Shadow Do

A footnote on N.C. of La Raza –

Years back (10-15?) I had a business acquaintance that in time became a good friend. I came to find out that he had a position with La Raza, an organization that I thought was sort of out there but knew little about.

One thing I did learn; annually there is a meeting of Medal of Honor winners and La Raza was a sponsor. My friend headed up their participation. One year he invited me along as a guest. This was one of the most memorable days of my life being able to spend the day mixing with these incredible heroes.

There is an amazing history of Latino military heroism and I cheer La Raza for honoring not just Latino but all MOH wearers.

My point, I guess, is that there is too much taken away some times from all the bombastic political and racial back and forth that goes on.

Great post.

118 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:33:07am

re: #68 Russkilitlover

They were election year pandering. Not card carrying members. Big difference. Huge.

Is there a link for this that's not something like Free Republic or World Net Daily? I can't seem to find anything on it.

119 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:33:39am

re: #115 jorline

OT

Obama in L.A.: 'You ain't seen nothing yet'

My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord...
///

Blinding, ain't it?

120 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:34:10am

re: #114 Charles

Ok, I should have written "abortion-related ruling." It still suggests that she's not a radical on the issue.

Then I will amend my statement from above...

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions, anti-police excessive force against anti-abortion protestors, plain vanilla racist.

Tracking better all the time.

121 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:34:44am

re: #108 Macker

I just wrote Senators McCain and Kyl about Sotomayor this morning. Judging from past experiences, I'll hear from Kyl, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, before I hear from McCain, who does not.

Nearly every time I express my views to my Senators, Murray and Cantwell, I get back a pro-forma boilerplate reply of "nice to hear from you, we are going to do what we want". The only time I got an actual reply was when they wanted money for re-election.

122 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:34:50am

re: #114 Charles

Ok, I should have written "abortion-related ruling.

It wasn't even that, IMHO. The only "relation" to abortion is that it was the issue the protesters were on about.

I mean, I suppose an utterly INSANE pro-abortion judge might have ruled that it was okay for the cops to beat up the protesters, on the grounds that pro-life protesters have it coming because they're evil (or something like that). But we're getting pretty far out with that hypothetical.

123 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:34:55am

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

I love discovering reality!

124 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:35:04am

re: #79 Charles

So you think that Rove and McCain would give speeches to a racist hate group?

The fact that top GOP politicians seem to give them a fair hearing doesn't change your assessment at all?

I remember that a lot of people were flat-out furious with McCain about speaking to La Raza. I don't - offhand - remember what the reaction was to Rove.

125 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:35:05am

re: #97 StillAMarine

The more I read and hear about Sonia Sotomayor, the more I believe that it would be foolhardy for Conservatives to contest her appointment too aggressively.
Primus: she is going to get in, no matter how bitter the debate.
Secundus: Anybody else Obama chooses would almost certainly be much worse.
Tertius: A bitter debate would only result in further alienating Hispanic voters.
The MSM would gleefully jump on an acrimonious confirmation disputation, pinning the "racist" label to Conservatives, while ignoring how badly the left savaged Mr. Gonzales, another Hispanic who comes from an even humbler background than does Ms. Sotomayor.

(Howzzat for somebody who flunked high school Latin?)

If the process gets misogynistic at all, it could also alienate more women.

126 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:35:10am

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

Then I will amend my statement from above...

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions, anti-police excessive force against anti-abortion protestors, plain vanilla racist.

Tracking better all the time.

I don't agree that she's a "racist." I'm not seeing that in anything I've read.

127 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:35:46am

re: #116 Occasional Reader

I think it's great when our elected officials express a desire to regulate "every aspect of our lives", don't you? It really shows they care.

Reading that just absolutely chilled me. Such bald faced truths.

128 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:36:08am

re: #123 debutaunt

I love discovering reality!

I know. I don't see anyone denying that she has racially motivated ideas on judicial decision making.

129 jorline  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:36:28am

re: #119 unreconstructed rebel

Blinding, ain't it?

Blind Faith

130 Macker  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:36:51am

re: #101 Iron Fist

At one point in time, the Ku Klux Klan was considered a legtimate organization. Just ask Klegle Robert C. Byrd. when he was in the Klan, no one had a problem with it.

I have a problem with that.

And Byrd pretty much got a pass when he used the phrase "white n*gg*rs" in an interview. Even after he issued an apology.
But that's OK! He's a Demo☭rat!

/

Youtube Video
131 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:37:05am

re: #128 Walter L. Newton

I know. I don't see anyone denying that she has racially motivated ideas on judicial decision making.

As we keep researching, the truth shows itself.

132 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:37:19am

re: #120 Walter L. Newton

Then I will amend my statement from above...

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, against supplying US funds to countries to use for abortions, anti-police excessive force against anti-abortion protestors, plain vanilla racist.

Tracking better all the time.


See my note above. I would amend the statement yet again...

(And, again; I am not a big fanboy on either side of the abortion fight; I just try to tamp down the idea that, when a judge makes a ruling on a point of law that proves favorable to group X, that means she is substantively in favor of group X. In can be so, but it ain't necessarily so. I think the better lesson from that case is that Sotomayor apparently applied the law without fear or favor; not that she somehow "favored" the pro-life position.)

133 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:37:33am

re: #114 Charles

It's funny, I just don't care what her position is on abortion.

134 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:37:55am

re: #126 Charles

I don't agree that she's a "racist." I'm not seeing that in anything I've read.

I am well aware that you don't.

135 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:38:51am

re: #133 Dianna

It's funny, I just don't care what her position is on abortion.

Bingo.

136 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:38:51am

From Gaza with love

Man Records Near-Miss in Sderot, Israel

Liveleak Video

Recorded on: May 17 2007

137 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:38:54am

re: #126 Charles

I don't agree that she's a "racist." I'm not seeing that in anything I've read.

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.

138 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:39:37am

re: #88 Charles

I'm not suggesting that -- I'm saying that she hasn't taken obviously pro-abortion stances in anything I've been able to find. It's not clear where she stands on abortion, but the few decisions she has made seem to indicate that she's not a radical on the issue.

This is the truth.

Look, real liberals and prochoice people are ANGRY at her nomination BECAUSE she's too centrist! Check the NYT or memeorandum and you'll find a load of such articles.

me, I'm pro-choice, and I don't like SS's decisions. As a partisan concerned with one issue, I don't like her,

As an American, though, it looks to me like she's a competent jurist and eminently qualified for the court. And I abhor the idea of a political test or a litmus test for a SCOTUS justice, whether it's by the left or the right. Even if it means bad news for one of my partisan principles. (and the pro-choice principle is damn close to non-negotiable for me)

I have faith in our system, which is why I didn't lose my shit over Roberts or Alito either. (Bork is another story, because he was a lunatic and a theocrat).

139 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:40:08am

re: #118 Honorary Yooper

Is there a link for this that's not something like Free Republic or World Net Daily? I can't seem to find anything on it.

Found it, as others mentioned, on her ABA profile page.

In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza. She has received many honors including, most recently, an award from the National Association of Women Lawyers.

A lot of groups are listed there. A decent profile though.

(As an aside, I think some of us are getting La Raza and MEChA a bit conflated here. MEChA's the overtly racist group.)

140 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:40:23am

Since this is settled - we all knows the end result, Justice Sotomayor, can we get done and move on? While we're all staring at this blinking bulb the world is getting all lost in preparation for war & bankruptcy.

141 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:40:25am

re: #136 Killgore Trout

It sounded like a hit.

142 DaddyG  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:41:17am

I am uncomfortable hanging a supreme court candidate out to dry based on one or two notable statements. Just because the MSM and the Democrats are good at demonizing that doesn't mean conservatives benefit by using that tactic.

Substantive discussion of her body of judicial and legal work is lost in the fog of Drudge like headlines of "wise Latina woman" and "La Raza".

Its like the election all over again where it was like pulling teeth to find actual voting records and platform positions for candidates. No lack of titillating headlines and gaffe coverage though.

143 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:41:35am

And anyway, as previously noted, "La Raza" just means "peaceful internal struggle". Or something like that.

144 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:41:39am

re: #43 FurryOldGuyJeans you bet they are.......... this "she is a racist" dog won't hunt..............

145 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:41:40am

re: #97 StillAMarine

I knew if I stuck around long enough I'd find another lizard that thinks just like me, and one that is actually able to articulate the thinking clearly and concisely. Exactly my thoughts there marine. I would have simply posted "it could be worse" knowing its in the bag for her and we can only be hurt by aggressively opposing the pick.

146 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:41:45am
147 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:41:48am

re: #128 Walter L. Newton

re: #137 Occasional Reader

See # 52. There is zero evidence that has turned up in any of her rulings that indicates she allows race to factor into her rulings. Not to mention the fact that her "latina woman" quote is so completely overblown. All she did was indicate that completely separating your personal identity from your judgement is impossible, unless you are deluding yourself.

"Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position."

-Sonia Sotomayor Ooops... Sam Alito

148 bnichols10  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:41:58am

From the La Raza website:

Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.

The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.

149 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:42:05am

re: #139 Honorary Yooper

SHHHHH! Quit bringing up facts! Makes people nervous!

150 JohnnyReb  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:42:55am

re: #137 Occasional Reader

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.

When someone comes out in a public forum and says that she feels that she would be better qualified because of her Latina background to make a better legal decision than a white male who didn't lead that kind of life, I have to call that racist.

151 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:42:58am

re: #106 Charles

And Karl Rove was the top adviser to the President of the United States, which is arguably an even more important position. Don't you think he would have refused to talk to La Raza, if it was perfectly clear that they're a racist hate group?

I think a lot of people here (including myself) are getting La Raza and MEChA mixed up. It is MEChA that promotes the VB style separatism and racism. See my #139 for the Wiki links.

152 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:43:03am

re: #137 Occasional Reader

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.

It's very troubling. There's no such thing - to my mind - as group rights, and group identity heads in that direction at high speed.

153 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:43:11am

re: #137 Occasional Reader

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.

You make a good point. Then I will amend my statement from above...

Well this is looking up. She is a qualified judge, moderate on business issues, anti-police excessive force against anti-abortion protestors, quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions.

Tracking better all the time.

154 Spare O'Lake  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:43:32am

re: #115 jorline

OT

Obama in L.A.: 'You ain't seen nothing yet'


My eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord...
///

B-b-b-b-b-baby!

155 sngnsgt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:43:36am

re: #142 DaddyG

Check out the green-faced photo of Pelosi on Drudge.

156 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:43:56am

re: #144 gtrs

you bet they are.......... this "she is a racist" dog won't hunt..............

There are people who want to try. And will be as soundly praised as Chicken Little was for proclaiming disaster.

157 Big Steve  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:44:03am

re: #137 Occasional Reader

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.


This is where reading the oral arguments to the Supreme court on the white firefighter case changed my mind. Did you know that it is established law and constitutional (as ruled by the supreme court) to, in fact, use racial identity in decision making. For example, you are the hiring manager for a company and you advertise for a job with a deadline to apply by June 1. Come June 1 you review all the applicants and determine that none of them are minorities. Your company has determined to even up the diversity of its work force. Therefore you decide to hold open the application process for another month in hopes of getting more minorities........well guess what....perfectly legal.

158 pink freud  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:44:08am

re: #148 bnichols10

CAIR - like obfuscation.

159 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:44:31am

re: #102 Buck

Every post is sacred.... and you wasted yours.

Don't know what you mean, but more power to ya.

160 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:44:51am

re: #147 drcordell

All she did was indicate that completely separating your personal identity from your judgement is impossible

No, that's not "all she did". She explicitly said that a "wise Latina" would reach "better" decisions than a white male. "Better"... her word, not mine.

And no, I don't think this is the equivalent of a SCOTUS nominee who is a Klan member or some such thing. But it's a strike against her, and we shouldn't pretend she said something other that what she actually said.

161 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:44:57am

re: #141 debutaunt

It sounded like a hit.

Well, all rockets hit the ground, eventually.

162 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:45:05am

re: #152 Dianna

It's very troubling. There's no such thing - to my mind - as group rights, and group identity heads in that direction at high speed.

Individual rights are so much simpler to deal with.

163 Red Ruffansore  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:45:07am

I have no issue calling her a racist. Take her exact words and twist it to fit from a white male perspective and then go fly that canard, you'll get clubbed like a baby seal in the spring. She is a left wing moonbat and given how Bork, Thomas, Estrada and Gonzales were treated by the left, I would think that our party could grow a set and simply use the liberals EXACT words they used against our nominees against the Dali Bama's pick. As for LGF just waffling around and not seeing anything wrong with a "moderate".....go scrub those rose colored glasses and refocus.

164 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:45:13am

re: #147 drcordell

re: #137 Occasional Reader

See # 52. There is zero evidence that has turned up in any of her rulings that indicates she allows race to factor into her rulings. Not to mention the fact that her "latina woman" quote is so completely overblown. All she did was indicate that completely separating your personal identity from your judgement is impossible, unless you are deluding yourself.

"Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position."

-Sonia Sotomayor Ooops... Sam Alito

Then lets take this from her own mouth...

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others...."

[Link: www.cnn.com...]

165 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:45:19am
166 DaddyG  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:45:28am

re: #155 sngnsgt The photo is cropped a little close. Is she wearing the pointy black hat and straddling a broom? /

167 pink freud  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:45:55am

re: #155 sngnsgt

Check out the green-faced photo of Pelosi on Drudge.

No! DON'T!

/scary

168 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:46:04am

The Sonia Sotomayor Case File: A Pundit's Primer


From sports to impounded vehicles and everything in between, six of the new Supreme Court nominee's decisions as a judge shed light on her judicial philosophy — whether you're for her or against her.
169 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:46:04am

re: #155 sngnsgt

Check out the green-faced photo of Pelosi on Drudge.

Prepare for the massive inventory.

170 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:46:49am
171 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:46:54am

re: #165 Iron Fist

La Raza was a big donor to MEChA until at least 2003. I put up a post with a link earlier today.

But their "la raza" has become an internal struggle (hit tip - OP) and is no longer a problem.

172 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:46:58am

re: #159 BatGuano

Don't know what you mean, but more power to ya.

Monty Python reference.

173 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:47:18am

re: #137 Occasional Reader

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.

I read the entire speech from which that short quote everyone's using to indict her for "racism" was pulled, and the full context makes it clear that she's absolutely not saying she would make decisions based on race -- it's a lot more thoughtful than that.

Were people expecting Obama to nominate a conservative or something? Yes, she seems to lean toward the liberal side, and yes, she seems more inclined to give weight to personal experience and heritage than a conservative nominee would (or at least, more inclined than a conservative nominee would admit), but I just don't see the basis for calling her an "extremist" or a "racist."

174 1SG(ret)  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:48:47am

I'll never support someone that is a member of any racist organization, even if they moderate thier racist language or profile. PERIOD! To do so would be, "Racist"

And I learned that here through CHARLES/name not to be spoken threads.

Racist = Racist
Racist Lite = Racist still

175 Eowyn2  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:48:48am

re: #25 IslandLibertarian

When the "business" is gun ownership:
In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

/disturbing

What was the context of the case. I'm lazy, dont want to look it up.

176 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:49:03am

re: #172 debutaunt

Monty Python reference.

He/She mean, "every sperm is sacred", is scared from the meaning of life?

177 unreconstructed rebel  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:49:06am

re: #155 sngnsgt

Check out the green-faced photo of Pelosi on Drudge.

re: #169 debutaunt

Prepare for the massive inventory.

Whatever became of Sweet Land of Liberty?

178 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:49:42am

re: #173 Charles

I read the entire speech from which that short quote everyone's using to indict her for "racism" was pulled, and the full context makes it clear that she's absolutely not saying she would make decisions based on race -- it's a lot more thoughtful than that.

I read it, too; and as discussed on a thread yesterday, I thought the quote actually got worse with context, not better. But, well, to each his own.

179 KenJen  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:49:49am

re: #138 iceweasel

I'm glad you think she is competent but as an American I want the best. She will be deciding my rights as a citizen. When I choose a surgeon I choose the best not one who's just competent. She is not the cream of the crop and everyone knows it. She was chosen because she was a female and a Hispanic/Puerto Rican/Latina whatever they are calling her today. I'm disappointed in her nomination but not surprised. Republicans have bigger issues than this and need to start looking a them.

180 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:49:55am

Let's all get distracted by shiny things and ignore the rest of reality:

GM makes new bondholder offer ahead of bankruptcy

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp said on Thursday it had reached a deal with some major bondholders that would give them a bigger stake in a reorganized automaker and could pave the way for a fast-track bankruptcy backed by the U.S. Treasury within days.

The announcement was the clearest indication yet that GM, the No. 1 U.S. automaker, is close to filing for bankruptcy under the direction of the Obama administration. It would be the biggest-ever bankruptcy for a U.S. industrial company.

Under the proposed deal, which is supported by major institutional creditors holding about a fifth of its debt, bondholders representing $27 billion in debt would be offered 10 percent of a reorganized GM -- the same stake they had been offered previously.

*snip*

The U.S. Treasury would own 72.5 percent of the new GM coming out of a bankruptcy sale process while a trust affiliated with the United Auto Workers union would own 17.5 percent, GM said in a filing with securities regulators.

181 MrSilverDragon  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:50:23am

re: #176 BatGuano

He/She mean, "every sperm is sacred", is scared from the meaning of life?

If they were scared, there'd be a lot less babies in the world.

/stupid off

182 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:50:41am

re: #164 Walter L. Newton

Right. She is saying in her own words what Alito himself said at his own confirmation. That one can't help but allow their personal history to affect their judgment, it's unavoidable. Any judge claiming to be 100% impartial is lying, that is the point of what Alito and Sotomayor both said.

Now, back to what I stated earlier. If Sotomayor is a blatant racist, surely ONE of her 380+ rulings at the appellate level would reflect her racist attitude. Yet you fail to cite one single case with an example of her racism. Do you think Alito is a racist because of his comments regarding immigrants?

183 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:50:45am

re: #180 FurryOldGuyJeans

Let's all get distracted by shiny things and ignore the rest of reality.

184 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:51:53am
185 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:51:57am

re: #180 FurryOldGuyJeans

The U.S. Treasury would own 72.5 percent of the new GM coming out of a bankruptcy sale process while a trust affiliated with the United Auto Workers union would own 17.5 percent, GM said in a filing with securities regulators.

I think the plan is to sell off those shares when the economy improves. We'll make money off the deal.

186 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:52:00am

re: #160 Occasional Reader

No, that's not "all she did". She explicitly said that a "wise Latina" would reach "better" decisions than a white male. "Better"... her word, not mine.

And no, I don't think this is the equivalent of a SCOTUS nominee who is a Klan member or some such thing. But it's a strike against her, and we shouldn't pretend she said something other that what she actually said.

And if a white republican nominee said the same thing with the references reversed the left would be going bat shit crazy over this. The hypocrisy thing with the left is what bothers me most about this issue. Deep down I don't think she is racist but what she said should be considered racist by the left, but it isn't.

187 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:52:02am

re: #181 MrSilverDragon

OOPS. pimf. Sacred.

188 Eowyn2  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:52:08am

re: #148 bnichols10

Wouldnt a 'Spanish American" be a European American?
Spain is in Europe. Always has been, always will be.

189 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:52:22am

re: #176 BatGuano

He/She mean, "every sperm is sacred", is scared from the meaning of life?

Yes, except for the scared part.

190 DaddyG  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:52:33am

re: #177 unreconstructed rebel

Whatever became of Sweet Land of Liberty?


The founding fathers intended for Liberty to be a group right not something the average uneducated citizen would be able to handle on their own without some benevolent guidance from the government. /

191 NonNativeTexan  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:52:36am

The trillion dollar question?
How much does she owe in back taxes?

192 JohnnyReb  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:53:31am

re: #185 Killgore Trout

I think the plan is to sell off those shares when the economy improves. We'll make money off the deal.

Really? You honestly believe that a car company essentially run by the US government will turn a profit? Seriously?

193 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:53:35am

re: #189 debutaunt

See # 187. Sorry

194 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:53:38am

re: #148 bnichols10

Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others.

So it's not meant to exclude anyone? No one at all? Wow!

I'm sorry, it's just this kind of mendacious nonsense that makes me question NCLR more than I otherwise would.

195 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:53:51am

re: #185 Killgore Trout

I think the plan is to sell off those shares when the economy improves. We'll make money off the deal.

That would be good.

196 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:53:51am

re: #185 Killgore Trout

I think the plan is to sell off those shares when the economy improves. We'll make money off the deal.

I will believe that plan when it happens. The reality is that the government will have a majority and controlling stake in a business for the foreseeable future.

197 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:54:09am

re: #177 unreconstructed rebel

Whatever became of Sweet Land of Liberty?

Inventory - I wonder what she's talking about. Oh, probably a more intense census next year?

198 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:54:10am

re: #99 Dave the.....

When she was in Princeton, she complained that there weren't enough professors there with "Chicano surnames".

Link please? -- I know what you're talking about, and you're distorting it.

Hmmm, I'm in grad school now. I've had three Indians, a Greek, an Israel, and 3 Americans of non-Scandinavian descent as professors.



You're in grad school THIRTY FUCKING YEARS after she was.

Yeah, things have changed. But this part of your complaint is kinda like a white person in 1984 saying "I don't get why they needed to pass brown v Board of Ed, because I sit next to black kids at school now."

199 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:54:19am
200 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:54:22am

re: #182 drcordell

Right. She is saying in her own words what Alito himself said at his own confirmation. That one can't help but allow their personal history to affect their judgment, it's unavoidable. Any judge claiming to be 100% impartial is lying, that is the point of what Alito and Sotomayor both said.

Now, back to what I stated earlier. If Sotomayor is a blatant racist, surely ONE of her 380+ rulings at the appellate level would reflect her racist attitude. Yet you fail to cite one single case with an example of her racism. Do you think Alito is a racist because of his comments regarding immigrants?

A 1999 dissent in a discrimination case in which a first-grader was transferred midyear to kindergarten, and subsequently alleged the school was indifferent to racial hostility: "Underlying this abrupt decisionmaking process, furthermore, was the crucial fact that" the boy "was the only black child in his classroom and one of the very few black students in the entire school. Reading the record in this light, a jury reasonably could conclude that the school did not give the black student an equal chance to succeed or fail. Contrary to the suggestion of the majority, such a conclusion would be based not 'merely' on a finding that the events in this case were 'unusual,' but on the inference, drawn from substantial circumstantial evidence, that they were tainted by race discrimination."

[Link: www.nj.com...]

201 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:55:08am

re: #197 debutaunt

Inventory - I wonder what she's talking about. Oh, probably a more intense census next year?

An ACORN run census would be to her liking.

202 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:55:15am

I'm sorry, but as a woman, I can tell you I have seen discrimination and it most certainly has had an impact on how I see things. It has shaped my life to be a female. (However- I speak out against all discrimination equally, and that includes race and both genders.) I think Sotomayor was being honest. Being a minority can shape your thinking on various issues. Maybe people don't want to admit it. If you do, you're a racist. I guess I'm a sexist then because I'm a woman, and I've been discriminated against, and I see it and it's affected me? Walk a mile in the shoes of someone else and come back and say it hasn't affected your thinking.

203 subsailor68  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:55:26am

re: #180 FurryOldGuyJeans

Let's all get distracted by shiny things and ignore the rest of reality:

GM makes new bondholder offer ahead of bankruptcy

Hi Furry! I agree with ya. Every time I see a new article on the GM situation, the government ends up with a higher percentage (e.g., 69 percent yesterday, 71.5 percent today). The situation with GM and Chrysler cannot possible be resolved successfully under these conditions.

As I posted yesterday, if I begin to see the divestiture of ownership by the government - sooner rather than later - I will assume it was merely an attempt (albeit not a very wise one) to stave off disaster.

If I do not see divestiture, and it would be hard for bureaucrats to give up power/revenue - I will assume it is socialism and expect to see more of it.

204 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:55:30am

re: #188 Eowyn2

Spain is in Europe. Always has been, always will be.

Not necessarily. Continental drift, baby!

205 rightymouse  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:55:43am

re: #185 Killgore Trout

I think the plan is to sell off those shares when the economy improves. We'll make money off the deal.

lol! Thanks. I needed the laugh.

206 avanti  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:55:57am

re: #160 Occasional Reader

No, that's not "all she did". She explicitly said that a "wise Latina" would reach "better" decisions than a white male. "Better"... her word, not mine.

And no, I don't think this is the equivalent of a SCOTUS nominee who is a Klan member or some such thing. But it's a strike against her, and we shouldn't pretend she said something other that what she actually said.


I think the "better" comment was poorly worded. If she meant that a Latino woman might bring a more diverse life experience then the typical white male and that experience might lead to a better decisions in certain cases, I could buy it.
I'm for a diverse court, but all Latino would be no "better" then all white. I do not agree she is a racist however.

207 Killgore Trout  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:56:00am

re: #195 Dianna

Hopefully we'll sell off those shares before the new management runs it into the ground again.

208 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:56:07am

re: #185 Killgore Trout

I think the plan is to sell off those shares when the economy improves. We'll make money off the deal.

Oh yeah, the government and union getting together will makes tons of money.

209 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:56:19am

re: #202 Sharmuta

It's funny, but either I've been intensely lucky, or (more likely) I just didn't notice discrimination.

210 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:56:24am

re: #138 iceweasel
but you know those commies at BUSINESS WEEK just love her.............

211 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:56:38am

I worked grave last night. I'm allowed to screw up all of my posts.
Aren't I?

212 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:57:42am
213 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:57:53am

re: #206 avanti

If she meant that a Latino woman might bring a more diverse life experience then the typical white male and that experience might lead to a better decisions in certain cases, I could buy it.

Because Latino women by definition have "more diverse" life experiences than do we "typical white males"... got it.

I can see now why you vote (D). You've taken the Kool-Aid. Group identity uber alles!

214 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:58:02am

re: #206 avanti

Find me a "typical white male". Just try.

I've seen a statistical description, but I've never met one.

215 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:58:20am

re: #203 subsailor68

Hi Furry! I agree with ya. Every time I see a new article on the GM situation, the government ends up with a higher percentage (e.g., 69 percent yesterday, 71.5 percent today). The situation with GM and Chrysler cannot possible be resolved successfully under these conditions.

As I posted yesterday, if I begin to see the divestiture of ownership by the government - sooner rather than later - I will assume it was merely an attempt (albeit not a very wise one) to stave off disaster.

If I do not see divestiture, and it would be hard for bureaucrats to give up power/revenue - I will assume it is socialism and expect to see more of it.

I have seen no real plans talking about divestiture, just a bunch of "yeah, we will do it, eventually" platitudes.

The original Chrysler bailout was a bad idea, this is now is so much worse.

216 Eowyn2  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:58:29am

re: #192 JohnnyReb

Really? You honestly believe that a car company essentially run by the US government will turn a profit? Seriously?

It will sure make it easier for the downtrodden to get vehicles.

217 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:58:40am

re: #207 Killgore Trout

Hopefully we'll sell off those shares before the new management runs it into the ground again.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

218 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:58:52am

re: #196 FurryOldGuyJeans

I will believe that plan when it happens. The reality is that the government will have a majority and controlling stake in a business for the foreseeable future.

They are financial geniuses in the stamp and delivery department.

219 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:58:52am

re: #147 drcordell
THE MONEY SHOT! ding ding ding ding dingding........................

220 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:59:02am

re: #213 Occasional Reader

Because Latino women by definition have "more diverse" life experiences than do we "typical white males"... got it.

I can see now why you vote (D). You've taken the Kool-Aid. Group identity uber alles!

I wish I had more updings to give!

221 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:59:05am

re: #214 Dianna

Find me a "typical white male". Just try.

I've seen a statistical description, but I've never met one.

Does a cranky old coot white male work? ;)

222 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:59:24am

re: #147 drcordell

Odd how you felt the need to ding down my #160, in which I respectfully disagreed with you on a substantive point. I guess that tells me something about you.

223 MrSilverDragon  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:59:27am

re: #214 Dianna

Find me a "typical white male". Just try.

I've seen a statistical description, but I've never met one.

I can't speak for all of 'em, but I know I'm atypical. Just ask my fiancee, she'll vouch for that. ;)

224 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:59:38am

re: #173 Charles

I read the entire speech from which that short quote everyone's using to indict her for "racism" was pulled, and the full context makes it clear that she's absolutely not saying she would make decisions based on race -- it's a lot more thoughtful than that.

Were people expecting Obama to nominate a conservative or something? Yes, she seems to lean toward the liberal side, and yes, she seems more inclined to give weight to personal experience and heritage than a conservative nominee would (or at least, more inclined than a conservative nominee would admit), but I just don't see the basis for calling her an "extremist" or a "racist."

This is from the same speech...

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

I accept...
our experiences...
woman...
color...
AFFECT OUR DECISIONS

I don't know what is clearer than that.

225 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 11:59:41am

re: #211 BatGuano

I worked grave last night. I'm allowed to screw up all of my posts.
Aren't I?

Sure, I get away with it here all the time and I don't even work grave :.)

226 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:00:10pm

re: #214 Dianna

Find me a "typical white male". Just try.

My 2.4 children and I nearly spit out our Wonder Bread sandwiches when we read that line!

227 FurryOldGuyJeans  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:00:19pm

re: #218 debutaunt

They are financial geniuses in the stamp and delivery department.

Having a monopoly sure makes it easier to make money.

228 Eowyn2  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:00:30pm

re: #213 Occasional Reader

Because Latino women by definition have "more diverse" life experiences than do we "typical white males"... got it.

I can see now why you vote (D). You've taken the Kool-Aid. Group identity uber alles!

how do you know you are "typical" maybe you are a-typical? Maybe you're, you know, um, Differently-Typical?

229 [deleted]  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:00:38pm
230 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:01:14pm

re: #179 KenJen

. She is not the cream of the crop and everyone knows it. She was chosen because she was a female and a Hispanic/Puerto Rican/Latina whatever they are calling her today.

[..] Republicans have bigger issues than this and need to start looking a them.

I don't think there is any reason to suppose she's not the cream of the crop. People have been talking about her as a SCOTUS pick for over ten years, her academic and judicial cred are impeccable, and she was a Bush 41 appointee intially. for fuck's sake! This is NOT some flaming liberal.

I'd agree that there are bigger issues that the GOP should be focusing on.

231 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:01:15pm

re: #221 FurryOldGuyJeans

Does a cranky old coot white male work? ;)

I've met a few of those. But they were not interchangeable, nor were their lives and experiences.

232 Honorary Yooper  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:01:52pm

re: #214 Dianna

Find me a "typical white male". Just try.

I've seen a statistical description, but I've never met one.

I never have either since every individual is different and has different life experiences.

233 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:01:59pm

re: #200 Walter L. Newton

I'd be lying if I said I was familiar with any aspect of the case you referenced. But upon reading the excerpt, I'd say there isn't enough information there to know either way. The case in question was a case directly related to accusations of racism in public schools. Without knowing anything about the underlying evidence, the fact that she ruled in favor of the black plaintiff really doesn't tell us much about Sotomayor.

There are plenty of anti-segregation laws on the books. Sotomayor ruling that race discrimination occurred according to the guidelines laid out by the law doesn't make her an "activist." If anything it simply makes her a constructionist. If you have an issue with anti-discrimination laws, that's not Sotomayor's fault.

234 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:02:01pm

re: #201 FurryOldGuyJeans

An ACORN run census would be to her liking.

We'll likely be talking about it next year.

235 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:02:07pm

re: #202 Sharmuta

Sharmuta, I have the utmost respect for you, but what has that to do with interpreting the constitution? That is what a supreme Court Justice does. They can't distrubute justice like a Pez dispenser.

236 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:02:18pm

re: #211 BatGuano

I worked grave last night. I'm allowed to screw up all of my posts.
Aren't I?

"Ask for my posts to-morrow, you shall find me a grave man."

-BatMercutio

237 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:03:04pm

re: #226 Occasional Reader

My 2.4 children and I nearly spit out our Wonder Bread sandwiches when we read that line!

Why?

Did I say something funny?/

238 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:03:17pm

re: #236 Occasional Reader

Romeo and Juliette! Lol!

239 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:03:38pm

re: #233 drcordell

I'd be lying if I said I was familiar with any aspect of the case you referenced. But upon reading the excerpt, I'd say there isn't enough information there to know either way. The case in question was a case directly related to accusations of racism in public schools. Without knowing anything about the underlying evidence, the fact that she ruled in favor of the black plaintiff really doesn't tell us much about Sotomayor.

There are plenty of anti-segregation laws on the books. Sotomayor ruling that race discrimination occurred according to the guidelines laid out by the law doesn't make her an "activist." If anything it simply makes her a constructionist. If you have an issue with anti-discrimination laws, that's not Sotomayor's fault.

This is all I care about... if the possibility exists, and she says it does, I don't want her on the court...

This is from the same speech...

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

I accept...
our experiences...
woman...
color...
AFFECT OUR DECISIONS

I don't know what is clearer than that.

240 avanti  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:03:54pm

re: #175 Eowyn2

What was the context of the case. I'm lazy, dont want to look it up.

Illegal alien caught with a handgun citing 2nd amendment protection. The court ruled he did not have 2nd amendment protection to keep and bear arms based on precedent.

Link..

241 NonNativeTexan  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:04:06pm

re: #202 Sharmuta

Life experience is quite a bit different than saying for instance,
"Because you are a woman , you think a certain way".
Which is sadly what many African Americans say,
"You're acting white". The point is your ethnicity alone does not
make you think or believe a certain way.

242 Eowyn2  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:04:21pm

re: #204 Occasional Reader

Not necessarily. Continental drift, baby!

Then it will be Ameriope?

243 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:04:33pm

re: #185 Killgore Trout

I think the plan is to sell off those shares when the economy improves. We'll make money off the deal.

I'm trying to think of some govt agency or entity that turns the equivalent of a profit, whether it be turning out good quality educated students or quality cost effective medical care, or something, anything... I can't think of anything.

244 Born Again Republican  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:05:07pm

re: #186 turn

And if a white republican nominee said the same thing with the references reversed the left would be going bat shit crazy over this. The hypocrisy thing with the left is what bothers me most about this issue. Deep down I don't think she is racist but what she said should be considered racist by the left, but it isn't.

Reminds me of Newt Gingrich's statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. The man had to give up his leadership position because of it.

245 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:05:12pm

re: #228 Eowyn2

how do you know you are "typical" maybe you are a-typical? Maybe you're, you know, um, Differently-Typical?

I consider myself an utterly typical, Spanish-speaking Irish-German American conservative registered Democrat christojudeophilic atheist inside-the-Beltway gun owner. I'm exactly like all the other ones you've met.

246 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:05:44pm

re: #230 iceweasel

naw Harriot Miers, now there is a good pick
/

247 ConservatismNow!  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:05:58pm

re: #228 Eowyn2

how do you know you are "typical" maybe you are a-typical? Maybe you're, you know, um, Differently-Typical?

I'm proto-typical.

248 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:06:03pm

re: #235 BatGuano

Sharmuta, I have the utmost respect for you, but what has that to do with interpreting the constitution? That is what a supreme Court Justice does. They can't distrubute justice like a Pez dispenser.

She said during her first confirmation she wouldn't read rights into the Constitution, but nobody wants to talk about that.

249 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:06:33pm

re: #243 unrealizedviewpoint

I'm trying to think of some govt agency or entity that turns the equivalent of a profit, whether it be turning out good quality educated students or quality cost effective medical care, or something, anything... I can't think of anything.

The military does a perfectly lovely job of killing people and breaking things, which is, indeed, what we pay them to do. What's more, they do it without killing the people and breaking the things we'd really rather they didn't, more often than not.

That's value for money!

250 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:06:53pm

re: #244 Born Again Republican

Reminds me of Newt Gingrich's statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. The man had to give up his leadership position because of it.

You mean Trent Lott.

Newt was out, long before that.

251 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:07:21pm

re: #210 gtrs

but you know those commies at BUSINESS WEEK just love her.............

Naturally, because business week and the people who read it are well known as commie pinko socialists.

Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you no decency?

/snarky ref to mcCarthyism off

252 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:07:24pm

re: #126 Charles

Has it been confirmed that she's a member of La Raza? (frankly, if that's the case, I find that shocking. La Raza is an advocacy group. And speaking to such a group -- speaking to, say, CAIR -- is very much different from being a member of the group, being a member of, say, CAIR. Here in Canada, if you were to be hired by the CBC, one of the first things you need to do is resign and stop any affliation with any "advocacy" groups...that's to demonstrate one's impartiality, that you're not going to be swayed or accused of being pressured into making statements which could be seen by someone as "biased." Justice must not just be done, but seen to be done...anyway, maybe I've been outside the U.S. for too long -- or maybe certain rules have changed so you can be a card-carrying member of advocacy group X and still be a "judge." That such a rule exists strikes me as problematic...)

253 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:07:30pm

re: #241 NonNativeTexan

Life experience is quite a bit different than saying for instance,
"Because you are a woman , you think a certain way".
Which is sadly what many African Americans say,
"You're acting white". The point is your ethnicity alone does not
make you think or believe a certain way.

Who said that it does?

254 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:08:09pm

re: #249 Dianna

The military does a perfectly lovely job of killing people and breaking things, which is, indeed, what we pay them to do. What's more, they do it without killing the people and breaking the things we'd really rather they didn't, more often than not.

As I like to say; killing people and breaking things is the military's core competency, NOT its mission. And that's as it should be.

255 Born Again Republican  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:08:18pm

re: #250 Dianna

Your right, thank you.

256 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:08:34pm

re: #249 Dianna

The military does a perfectly lovely job of killing people and breaking things, which is, indeed, what we pay them to do. What's more, they do it without killing the people and breaking the things we'd really rather they didn't, more often than not.

That's value for money!

I love the military, all they do, all they stand for... but, it's done with a hell of a lot of money. A hell of a lot of money. There's no cap to what's made available to them. None!

257 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:08:46pm

re: #252 J.S.

It's on her ABA bio page. See here.

258 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:09:08pm

re: #222 Occasional Reader

I down-dinged you because you are repeatedly beating the dead horse that is the "latina woman" quote. Read in context, she is simply making the point that no judge can honestly claim to be 100% impartial. A sentiment that was shared by none other than Samuel Alito during his Senate Confirmation hearing.

You have the right to continue your faux-outrage at a quote taken completely out of context. And I have the right to down-ding you for lowering the quality of the discourse on this thread by repeating a Hannity talking point.

259 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:09:14pm

re: #256 unrealizedviewpoint

I love the military, all they do, all they stand for... but, it's done with a hell of a lot of money. A hell of a lot of money. There's no cap to what's made available to them. None!

Good.

Value for money, as I said.

260 Macker  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:09:15pm

re: #164 Walter L. Newton

She's definitely playing the Race Card.

261 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:09:18pm

re: #227 FurryOldGuyJeans

Having a monopoly sure makes it easier to make money.

And yet, they are losing money each year.

262 redstateredneck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:09:21pm

re: #244 Born Again Republican

Reminds me of Newt Gingrich's statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. The man had to give up his leadership position because of it.

That was Trent Lott.

263 avanti  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:09:37pm

re: #213 Occasional Reader

Because Latino women by definition have "more diverse" life experiences than do we "typical white males"... got it.

I can see now why you vote (D). You've taken the Kool-Aid. Group identity uber alles!

Not by definition, but no question that is the reality. Sure, there are white judges that grew up disadvantaged, and Latino's born well off, but I'm talking real world.
If you are saying that there is typically little difference in racial or cultural backgrounds, we have a fundamental disagreement.

264 ConservatismNow!  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:10:04pm

re: #254 Occasional Reader

As I like to say; killing people and breaking things is the military's core competency, NOT its mission. And that's as it should be.

it's their medium.

265 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:10:09pm

re: #254 Occasional Reader

As I like to say; killing people and breaking things is the military's core competency, NOT its mission. And that's as it should be.

Yes, I know, I agree. But I was trying to point out that we definitely get what we pay for in this case!

266 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:10:43pm

re: #248 Sharmuta those folks are too busy calling her names to check out her record...............

267 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:10:59pm

re: #244 Born Again Republican

Reminds me of Newt Gingrich's statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. The man had to give up his leadership position because of it.

I hadn't though about that, exactly. The hypocrisy goes way back.

268 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:11:18pm

re: #258 drcordell

You haven't been paying attention. OR read the whole thing, and found that the quote got worse in context. As he has said, repeatedly.

269 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:11:42pm

re: #266 gtrs

Actually, that is not so.

270 KenJen  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:11:48pm

re: #230 iceweasel

I don't think there is any reason to suppose she's not the cream of the crop. People have been talking about her as a SCOTUS pick for over ten years, her academic and judicial cred are impeccable, and she was a Bush 41 appointee intially. for fuck's sake! This is NOT some flaming liberal.

I'd agree that there are bigger issues that the GOP should be focusing on.

I didn't say she she was a flaming Lib. Is it okay with you if I'm not thrilled with her? And don't cuss at me again sockpuppet.

271 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:12:04pm

re: #250 Dianna

Thanks for reminding me of that.

272 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:12:35pm

re: #266 gtrs

I never called her a name.

273 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:12:48pm

re: #258 drcordell

I down-dinged you because you are repeatedly beating the dead horse that is the "latina woman" quote. Read in context, she is simply making the point that no judge can honestly claim to be 100% impartial. A sentiment that was shared by none other than Samuel Alito during his Senate Confirmation hearing.

You have the right to continue your faux-outrage at a quote taken completely out of context. And I have the right to down-ding you for lowering the quality of the discourse on this thread by repeating a Hannity talking point.

I read the speech, thanks very much.

The quote was not out of context.

She did not merely acknowledge that one's life experiences color one's judgment; she downright celebrated her prejudices, and baldly asserted that her ethnicity and gender allows her to make "better" decisions (again, HER WORD, NOT MINE, as much as you'd like to pretend otherwise) than those who did not share that ethnicity and gender.
You can obfuscate all you want; the evidence is in black and white.

274 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:12:57pm

re: #251 iceweasel
yep; your post and especially the post from "drcordell" knocked this one out of the park(if playing the "she is a racist" card is all the ammunition they have, this nomination is a SLAM DUNK)..............

275 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:12:58pm

re: #263 avanti

You're not thinking. Really, you're not.

276 rightymouse  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:13:09pm

re: #249 Dianna

The military does a perfectly lovely job of killing people and breaking things, which is, indeed, what we pay them to do. What's more, they do it without killing the people and breaking the things we'd really rather they didn't, more often than not.

That's value for money!

I agree that they are the best 'bang for the buck'. But they aren't profit centered either. The USPS, for instance, could be, but it's a bureaucratic mess like most gummint entities.

277 NonNativeTexan  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:13:17pm

re: #253 Sharmuta

As I stated, a large number of African Americans do.

278 redstateredneck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:13:19pm

I wish I could find it but I heard a clip earlier today of Obama saying that Sotomayor was going to march up those steps and bring justice back to the court...I'm paraphrasing. Dammit. Wish I could find a link. Does anybody else know what I'm talking about?

279 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:14:24pm

It like how being left or right colors our thinking. We're insisting on seeing the bad in this woman because we're righties.

280 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:14:46pm

re: #276 rightymouse

I agree that they are the best 'bang for the buck'. But they aren't profit centered either. The USPS, for instance, could be, but it's a bureaucratic mess like most gummint entities.

Oh, certainly not - but most governmental activities, properly understood, aren't going to be profit centers. They should, however, be good value for the money.

281 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:15:43pm

re: #278 redstateredneck

I wish I could find it but I heard a clip earlier today of Obama saying that Sotomayor was going to march up those steps and bring justice back to the court...I'm paraphrasing. Dammit. Wish I could find a link. Does anybody else know what I'm talking about?

Yes, I heard it, and can't remember where.

A remarkably stupid thing for Obama to have said, and insulting.

282 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:00pm

re: #258 drcordell

...You have the right to continue your faux-outrage at a quote taken completely out of context. And I have the right to down-ding you for lowering the quality of the discourse on this thread by repeating a Hannity talking point.

Well, ain't you the fucking little thread police. Who the hell gave you the badge to decide if OP is lowering the quality of this discussion?

You sir are a egotistical bastard in my opinion.

283 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:12pm

re: #279 Sharmuta

It like how being left or right colors our thinking. We're insisting on seeing the bad in this woman because we're righties.

No, I'm flat not happy with what I'm reading.

284 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:39pm

re: #277 NonNativeTexan

And Sotomayor?

285 NelsFree  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:42pm

re: #138 iceweasel

I have faith in our system, which is why I didn't lose my shit over Roberts or Alito either. (Bork is another story, because he was a lunatic and a theocrat).

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Quoted from Wikipedia:
"Bork is best known for his theory that the only way to reconcile the role of the judiciary in American government against what he terms the "Madisonian" or "counter-majoritarian" dilemma of the judiciary making law without popular approval is for constitutional adjudication to be guided by the framers' original understanding of the United States Constitution. Reiterating that it is a court's task to adjudicate and not to "legislate from the bench," he has advocated that judges exercise restraint in deciding cases, emphasizing that the role of the courts is to frame "neutral principles" (a term borrowed from Herbert Wechsler) and not simply ad hoc pronouncements or subjective value judgments. Bork once said, "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else."

Please find some justification for stating "Bork was a lunatic". I have just posted my justification for waving the B.S. flag in your general direction.

286 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:43pm

re: #239 Walter L. Newton

Yes Walter, she clearly stated that she believes there is no such thing as true impartiality. That one can't help but be shaped by their life experiences. And as I have mentioned multiple times, Conservative wunder-judge Samuel Alito re-iterated that very same belief during his Senate Confirmation. Yet his statements failed to elicit a single peep of outrage from the right-wing.

Either the outrage is because Sotomayor is a Latina woman, and that's unacceptable. Or it's because Sotomayor is considered "liberal" and that's unacceptable. Either way, the outrage isn't about what she said.

287 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:44pm

re: #273 Occasional Reader

another problem here -- if she were ever to make a ruling and it happened to favor a Latino -- gee, I wonder what she would be accused of, eh? -- regardless of whether or not the deicsion was fairly arrived at -- the perceptions, how this would be seen, would be: "She's Biased! Biased i tell you!"

288 Dianna  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:45pm

Back to my damnable database. Gah!

289 rightymouse  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:51pm

re: #280 Dianna

Oh, certainly not - but most governmental activities, properly understood, aren't going to be profit centers. They should, however, be good value for the money.


The value bit is key. Public schools, for instance, are basically a disaster, and money is not going to produce better value.

290 Former Belgian  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:53pm

re: #151 Honorary Yooper

I think a lot of people here (including myself) are getting La Raza and MEChA mixed up. It is MEChA that promotes the VB style separatism and racism. See my #139 for the Wiki links.

Good point, I have trouble keeping them apart too.

291 eschew_obfuscation  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:56pm

re: #137 Occasional Reader

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.


Ricci vs. DeStefano seems to be a pretty good example of that.

292 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:16:59pm

re: #258 drcordell

I down-dinged you because you are repeatedly beating the dead horse that is the "latina woman" quote. Read in context, she is simply making the point that no judge can honestly claim to be 100% impartial. A sentiment that was shared by none other than Samuel Alito during his Senate Confirmation hearing.

You have the right to continue your faux-outrage at a quote taken completely out of context. And I have the right to down-ding you for lowering the quality of the discourse on this thread by repeating a Hannity talking point.

Then you tell me what this means...

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....

I accept...
our experiences...
woman...
color...
AFFECT OUR DECISIONS

I don't know what is clearer than that.

293 Former Belgian  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:18:03pm

re: #244 Born Again Republican

Reminds me of Newt Gingrich's statement at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. The man had to give up his leadership position because of it.

I guess you mean Trent Lott rather than Newt?

294 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:18:14pm

re: #274 gtrs

yep; your post and especially the post from "drcordell" knocked this one out of the park(if playing the "she is a racist" card is all the ammunition they have, this nomination is a SLAM DUNK)..............

OR is not playing "she is a racist" card.

295 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:18:20pm

re: #246 turn

naw Harriot Miers, now there is a good pick
/

I just read something good, rebutting the meme that ss is Obama's harriet miers.

The comparison is so flawed that it's embarrassing.

296 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:18:27pm

re: #283 Dianna

No, I'm flat not happy with what I'm reading.

This is not a right, left or otherwise thing. This is not a over-reaction things, this is not commenters on some right-wring wacko blog, this is simple fact that we are discussing.

Dianna, you are so right.

297 1SG(ret)  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:18:34pm

re: #256 unrealizedviewpoint

Then you must have fought in different wars than I! There was and are limits to what is provided. Learning to do without needed item is one of the first rules of survival?

298 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:19:04pm

re: #263 avanti

If you are saying that there is typically little difference in racial or cultural backgrounds

That would be an awfully stupid thing to say. I'm sure glad I didn't say it.

Avanti... one individual is not inherently more "diverse" than another. Get it? It's a group descriptor, not an individual characteristic.

Honestly, you remind me of some white, liberal friends in DC who gush how they've moved into a very "diverse" neighborhood. You go to visit them, and notice that the neighborhood is 99.99% African-American... plus them. This is their definition of "diverse".

299 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:19:05pm

re: #279 Sharmuta

Well, speak for yourself. I routinely vote Liberal...(this is Canada).

300 capitalist piglet  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:19:16pm

re: #49 KingKenrod

I read the entire speech she gave (the "better than a white male" speech) and found it extremely troubling from an identity politics standpoint. She seems very big on equality of results instead of equality of opportunity. She speaks a lot about how justice will change once parity is achieved for minorities and women.

The speech is here:

[Link: www.berkeley.edu...]

It's not the kind of thing you want to read if you believe in a blind judiciary.

That seems to reflect Obama's thinking. He said this:

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e 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'm going to be selecting my judges."

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

301 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:20:17pm

re: #248 Sharmuta

I was referring to what you posted. It seemed you were agreeing with her about "life experience" having a bearing on judicial decisions.I say it is not necessary to take that into account when interpreting the constitution.

302 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:20:45pm

re: #282 Walter L. Newton "fucking little thread police"? that is laughable from a guy who can't take a little snark every once in a while.........

303 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:21:41pm

re: #282 Walter L. Newton

Well, ain't you the fucking little thread police. Who the hell gave you the badge to decide if OP is lowering the quality of this discussion?

You sir are a egotistical bastard in my opinion.

dang, are you telling me despite all his other talents he's a friggin famous movie producer too? ha

304 NonNativeTexan  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:21:52pm

re: #284 Sharmuta

No the democratic leadership, by implying that
being a Latina she will somehow represent Hispanics
better than a qualified white male would. In other words,
Hispanics as a group think or believe a certain way because they
are Hispanic. The lack of "tribal think" is one of the main
reasons America is a great country and melting pot.

305 redstateredneck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:21:52pm

re: #293 Former Belgian

I guess you mean Trent Lott rather than Newt?


He did. I always wondered if adult beverages were being served at that birthday party.

306 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:22:02pm

re: #286 drcordell

Either the outrage is because Sotomayor is a Latina woman, and that's unacceptable

You knew this one was coming, didn't you, kids!

If you disagree with "drcordell", you're a bigot.

307 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:22:24pm

re: #285 NelsFree
i personally feel bork believed in THEOCRACY, not DEMOCRACY;so, in my opinion, he was easy to disqualify..............

308 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:22:44pm

re: #297 1SG(ret)

Then you must have fought in different wars than I! There was and are limits to what is provided. Learning to do without needed item is one of the first rules of survival?

You're right I'm sure of it. I'm referring to the money allocated. It's there, just wasted, like any govt bureaucracy.

309 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:23:31pm

re: #303 turn

dang, are you telling me despite all his other talents he's a friggin famous movie producer too? ha

I have to admit, Mayberry (where I grew up) was not very diverse.

/

310 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:24:11pm

re: #301 BatGuano

I was referring to what you posted. It seemed you were agreeing with her about "life experience" having a bearing on judicial decisions.I say it is not necessary to take that into account when interpreting the constitution.

Was she admitting life experience has an impact on how one thinks, or was she saying she'd intentionally apply a standard where she shouldn't?

311 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:24:23pm

re: #295 iceweasel

Why don't you link it?

312 Flyers1974  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:24:29pm

re: #20 Lee Coller

Just once I'd like to see a Democrat President make the same mistake Bush did with Souter.

Only two Democratic nominees since LBJ.

313 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:24:34pm

re: #292 Walter L. Newton

What is the difference between that, and this?

SAMUEL ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
(snip)
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

Did you oppose the nomination of Alito so vehemently?

314 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:25:37pm

re: #302 gtrs

"fucking little thread police"? that is laughable from a guy who can't take a little snark every once in a while.........

If you are going to make a sarcastic comment, or say something satirical, then it is common practice to use a slash at the end of your comment to indicate that you are being "cute." We all do it, it's how we make a "joke" or an outrageous statement, without trying to actually be mean to the other Lizard.

So, you have not been doing this, and if you look at a good number of the comments left for you, they have been slamming you, Why? Because they don't know if you are having fun or not.

Most Lizards have a thick skin, but we will fight back when someone slams us. With the sarcasm tag, we can only assume you mean to be nasty.

Look, your new here, follow some of the protocol, or else, as another Lizard said earlier this morning, you're not long for this blog. Stinky with the big stick will eventually block you account if you think you can just walk all over people here.

Friendly word of advice.

315 NelsFree  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:25:57pm

I have to go, so pardon me if I do not post any rejoinders to replies to this post. Many pundits and Democrats have stated that the Republicans should not put up a fight over SotoMayor's nomination. Bend closer to the monitor as I regale you with what happened with Robert Bork's nomination. From Wiki, again:

"Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Edward Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring:

"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is -- and is often the only -- protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."[10]

A brief was prepared for Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Biden Report. Bork later said in his best-selling[11] book The Tempting of America that the report "so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility."[12] TV ads narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy's speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork's nomination. The rapid response towards Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech stunned the Reagan White House; though conservatives considered Kennedy's accusations slanderous,[9] the attacks went unanswered for two and a half months.[13]"

This does not include matters occurring during the actual hearing on the nomination. So, Republicans should just sit on their hands? PS you may lean back, now.

316 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:26:17pm

re: #310 Sharmuta

or was she saying she'd intentionally apply a standard where she shouldn't?

There's a quote from her (I'd have to dig to find it) in which she states that one has to decide when one's experiences and "prejudices" are "appropriate" to bring to bear in deciding a case.

As I asked yesterday; when are a judge's "prejudices" EVER appropriate to bring to bear in deciding a case?!

The quote is quite astonishing, coming from a sitting Federal judge.

317 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:26:53pm

re: #285 NelsFree bork would have been a great iranian ayatollah.............

318 Buck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:26:55pm

re: #137 Occasional Reader

I agree that "racist" might be an overblown description. But she's on the record as saying that she is quite comfortable using... let's say, "group identity", as a basis for making legal decisions. And that's troubling.

Each decision by a judge cannot simply be "apply against the constitution" and the answer is obvious. If it were, then we would not need judges, we could use a computer. Judgment comes from somewhere. Some people think it comes from experience and study. I think everyone agrees that a persons background has influence on that judgment.

For more than 200 years that background was mostly "white male". A lot of really good decisions were made, and a lot of really bad ones. Certainly it is clear that in the first 150+ years Women and minorities got the bulk of the bad ones. There is no way, for example, that the rights of women to vote would have been even questioned IF there had been a woman justice on the supreme court right from the start.

This judge does seem to be qualified, and has been through the vetting process now twice.

Is there a "white male" out there who is more qualified? Perhaps... but not really obviously.

Certainly if the qualifications are close to equal, I think it would help reduce the really bad and biased decisions to have more diversity on the bench.

Is that racist? I don't think so.

319 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:27:05pm

re: #313 drcordell

Did you oppose the nomination of Alito so vehemently?

Um... are you so obtuse that you don't notice Alito isn't saying the same thing that Sotomayor did?

320 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:27:42pm

re: #310 Sharmuta

Was she admitting life experience has an impact on how one thinks, or was she saying she'd intentionally apply a standard where she shouldn't?

Well of course she wasn't saying she'd intentionally apply a standard where she shouldn't, because she doesn't think she shouldn't.

Kind of obvious if you ask me.

321 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:27:52pm

re: #306 Occasional Reader

Surprisingly, you managed to take what I said out of context. Alito and Sotomayor both stated publicly that they believe their life experiences have shaped their judgment. The right wing has stirred itself into a frenzy over Sotomayor's "lack of impartiality" or "racism" yet did not utter a peep when Alito espoused the very same views.

I then stated that there are two possible conclusions one could draw from this. That the outrage stems from the fact that Sotomayor is liberal and not conservative. Or the fact that Sotomayor is a Latina and not a white male. How exactly is that me labeling anyone else who disagrees with me a bigot?

322 Randall Gross  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:28:23pm

Driveby: I was listening to Rush a bit ago, he's getting hate mail from registered members because he won't shut up about Sotomayer, so he spent another segment of his show telling us how she's a bigot etc.

His tone has gone from the confident optimistic one he had even during Clinton days to that of a whiny, exasperated, querulous child. Listening to him fifteen minutes makes you want to smack the radio anymore.

323 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:29:29pm

re: #307 gtrs

i personally feel bork believed in THEOCRACY, not DEMOCRACY;so, in my opinion, he was easy to disqualify..............

You're apparently an easy one to dislike.

324 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:29:52pm

re: #321 drcordell

Surprisingly, you managed to take what I said out of context. Alito and Sotomayor both stated publicly that they believe their life experiences have shaped their judgment. The right wing has stirred itself into a frenzy over Sotomayor's "lack of impartiality" or "racism" yet did not utter a peep when Alito espoused the very same views.

I then stated that there are two possible conclusions one could draw from this. That the outrage stems from the fact that Sotomayor is liberal and not conservative. Or the fact that Sotomayor is a Latina and not a white male. How exactly is that me labeling anyone else who disagrees with me a bigot?

OP didn't take anything out of context. I saw the same thing he did. You are blind (and becoming a bore).

325 NelsFree  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:29:58pm

re: #307 gtrs

i personally feel bork believed in THEOCRACY, not DEMOCRACY;so, in my opinion, he was easy to disqualify..............

You have stated your OPINION, now please provide some FACTS to support it.

326 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:30:05pm

re: #310 Sharmuta

She would never admit she would apply a standard where she shouldn't, but she did say that her judgment would be superior to a white male's because of her life experience.

327 capitalist piglet  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:31:17pm

re: #278 redstateredneck

I wish I could find it but I heard a clip earlier today of Obama saying that Sotomayor was going to march up those steps and bring justice back to the court...I'm paraphrasing. Dammit. Wish I could find a link. Does anybody else know what I'm talking about?

I heard it. He wants her to "deliver some justice", or some such thing (maybe it was "start to deliver some justice"?). It was off-putting to me, but I'm not his target audience. The subtext seemed to be "big changes are coming".

328 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:31:19pm

re: #321 drcordell

The right wing has stirred itself into a frenzy over Sotomayor's "lack of impartiality" or "racism" yet did not utter a peep when Alito espoused the very same views.

BZZZZT. False premise. Alito did not espouse the same views.

He spoke about how his experiences "brought [him] to where he is" (of course they did), but did NOT suggest that his particular ethnic background allowed him to make "better" decisions than others. Not. The Same. Thing.

329 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:31:39pm

re: #324 Walter L. Newton

OP didn't take anything out of context. I saw the same thing he did. You are blind (and becoming a bore).

I'm not "Opie", goddamit!

330 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:31:45pm

re: #326 BatGuano

She would never admit she would apply a standard where she shouldn't, but she did say that her judgment would be superior to a white male's because of her life experience.

Where did she say that? Here's the quote:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She didn't say her judgment was superior. She said she hoped she'd reach a better conclusion. There's a difference.

331 unrealizedviewpoint  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:31:50pm

re: #325 NelsFree

You have stated your OPINION, now please provide some FACTS to support it.

There are no such facts. The most liberal person I know believes Bork got Borked.

332 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:31:55pm

Sotomayor Ruled in "D-Bag Case"

Ruled teen's blog post created a created "foreseeable risk of substantial disruption"

By YVONNE NAVA and LEANNE GENDREAU

Updated 12:16 PM EDT, Thu, May 28, 2009

Related Topics: Sonia Sotomayor

134 Comments Post a Comment Print Email Share
ShareDel.icio.usBuzz up!MySpaceDigg FarkFacebookBuzz up!

Getty Images .Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor was named by U.S. President Barack Obama as his choice to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.

President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy has yet another tie to Connecticut. She sided against a student in the infamous “douche bag” case, and that has upset some free-speech advocates.


Enlarge Photo
Avery Doninger and mother Lauren
Top News Photos
View SlideshowSee amazing photos from around the globe...
In August 2007, Judge Sonia Sotomayor sat on a panel that ruled against an appeal in Doninger v. Niehoff.

Avery Doninger was disqualified from running for school government at Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington after she posted something on her blog, referring to the superintendent and other officials as "douche bags" because they canceled a battle of the bands she had helped to organize.

The case went to court and in March 2008, Sotomayor was on a panel that heard Doninger’s mother’s appeal alleging her daughter’s free speech and other rights were violated. Her mother wanted to prevent the school from barring her daughter from running.

Sotomayor joined two other judges from the 2nd Circuit in ruling that the student’s off-campus blog remarks created a “foreseeable risk of substantial disruption” at the student’s high school and that the teenager was not entitled to a preliminary injunction reversing a disciplinary action against her, Education Week reports.

In their opinion, the judges said they were “sympathetic" to her disappointment at being disqualified from running for Senior Class Secretary and acknowledged her belief that in this case, “the punishment did not fit the crime.”

However, the judges decided they were not called upon to determine if school officials acted wisely.

“As the Supreme Court cautioned years ago, “[t]he system of public education that has evolved in this Nation relies necessarily upon the discretion and judgment of school administrators and school board members,” and we are not authorized to intervene absent “violations of specific constitutional guarantees.”

Related Stories
•"D-Bag" Bill Heads to Senate
•"D Bag" Bill Would Protect Online Free Speech
•Judge Ends Free Speech Argument
The ruling in this case has come under heavy criticism from some civil libertarians. Some say this case presents a solid rationale for rejecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter.

“The continual expansion of the authority of school officials over student speech teaches a foul lesson to these future citizens,” Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the New Britain Herald. “I would prefer some obnoxious speech [rather] than teaching students that they must please government officials if they want special benefits or opportunities.”

Copyright Associated Press / NBC Connecticut

Sorry, don't know how to post a link yet..CCA

333 NelsFree  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:32:08pm

re: #317 gtrs

bork would have been a great iranian ayatollah.............

Once again, you have presented your opinion. Once again, I am asking you for some justification.
(crickets)
BBL

334 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:32:28pm

re: #329 Occasional Reader

I'm not "Opie", goddamit!

I'm not sure why you are making the statement about Mayberry and stuff. I'm on your side on this, and missing the point here. I'll back off, ok, if that's what you want?

335 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:32:51pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

Where did she say that? Here's the quote:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She didn't say her judgment was superior. She said she hoped she'd reach a better conclusion. There's a difference.

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others...."

336 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:33:37pm

re: #314 Walter L. Newton
/

337 redstateredneck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:33:41pm

re: #325 NelsFree

You have stated your OPINION, now please provide some FACTS to support it.


The treatment of Bork led to his name becoming a verb:


bork  /bɔrk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bawrk] Show IPA
–verb (used with object) to attack (a candidate or public figure) systematically, esp. in the media.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1988, Americanism; after Judge Robert H. Bork, whose appointment to the Supreme Court was blocked in 1987 after an extensive media campaign by his opponents

338 debutaunt  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:34:29pm

re: #316 Occasional Reader

There's a quote from her (I'd have to dig to find it) in which she states that one has to decide when one's experiences and "prejudices" are "appropriate" to bring to bear in deciding a case.

As I asked yesterday; when are a judge's "prejudices" EVER appropriate to bring to bear in deciding a case?!

The quote is quite astonishing, coming from a sitting Federal judge.

Diverse bigotry - how nice!

339 redstateredneck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:34:45pm

re: #327 capitalist piglet

I heard it. He wants her to "deliver some justice", or some such thing (maybe it was "start to deliver some justice"?). It was off-putting to me, but I'm not his target audience. The subtext seemed to be "big changes are coming".

He was using that preacher voice, too.

340 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:35:16pm

re: #333 NelsFree
sorry; i forgot the slash................................/....................there it is/

341 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:35:33pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She didn't say her judgment was superior. She said she hoped she'd reach a better conclusion. There's a difference.

Sharmuta... try reversing the roles, and you'll see that her quotation was not merely some aspiration to be a better person:


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 woman who hasn't lived that life.

Simple question; would you consider that statement acceptable, coming from a white, male SCOTUS nominee?

342 iceweasel  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:35:46pm

re: #270 KenJen

I didn't say she she was a flaming Lib. Is it okay with you if I'm not thrilled with her? And don't cuss at me again sockpuppet.

Hey, say whatever you want, to me or to anyone.
I'm not so thrilled with her myself, from the left standpoint. She's a moderate, not a lefty or a wingnut.

I promise not to cuss at you again--I was't aware I had-- but i kinda have a foul mouth.

Anyway, how about you not calling me a sockpuppet? I see no reason at all for you to call me one, unless it's that maybe my positions make you uncomfortable.

If I were a sockpuppet, Charles would have zapped me immediately. So spare me your speculations, Sherlock.

343 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:35:58pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

Where did she say that? Here's the quote:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She didn't say her judgment was superior. She said she hoped she'd reach a better conclusion. There's a difference.

Better is not superior?

Better = something superior in quality or condition or effect; "a change for the better"

[Link: www.google.com...]

Superior = of high or superior quality or performance; "superior wisdom derived from experience"; "superior math students"

[Link: www.google.com...]

Really Sharmuta, you are being obtuse.

344 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:36:43pm

re: #334 Walter L. Newton

I'm not sure why you are making the statement about Mayberry and stuff. I'm on your side on this, and missing the point here. I'll back off, ok, if that's what you want?

Walter... I'm just making a joke. You keep calling me "OP" (Opie, get it? Hence Mayberry, etc.).

345 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:37:06pm

re: #319 Occasional Reader

Alito: I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me... Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

Sotomayor: "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others"

Yeah... huge difference between those quotes.

Alito states that his "background and experiences have shaped him" and also states that in a case involving immigrants he "can't help but think of [his] own ancestors."

Sotomayor states that "experiences as women and people of color affect [her] decisions" and that "by our experiences [we] make different choices than others."

If I'm so obtuse, explain to me what else Alito could have meant with his quote besides "my experiences as a white, male from an immigrant family shaped my judgement."

346 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:37:32pm

re: #335 Walter L. Newton

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others...."

And.... the problem with this is what? That it's the truth? Every individual has biases and preferences- even judges. Do you deny this?

Did she say she doesn't aspire to impartiality anyways despite admitting the nature of it?

347 capitalist piglet  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:37:54pm

re: #339 redstateredneck

He was using that preacher voice, too.

Yeah, it was his "I've got street cred" voice, aimed directly at a very liberal audience, not the general public.

348 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:37:59pm

re: #344 Occasional Reader

Walter... I'm just making a joke. You keep calling me "OP" (Opie, get it? Hence Mayberry, etc.).

Oh I get it OP as in OPIE as in MAYBERRY. Yea, now I get it, I thought there was a problem, not I understand. (Really not that funny) :)

349 redstateredneck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:38:41pm

re: #348 Walter L. Newton

Oh I get it OP as in OPIE as in MAYBERRY. Yea, now I get it, I thought there was a problem, not I understand. (Really not that funny) :)

OR in Mayberry? Yeah, that's funny.

350 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:38:58pm

re: #346 Sharmuta

And.... the problem with this is what? That it's the truth? Every individual has biases and preferences- even judges. Do you deny this?

Did she say she doesn't aspire to impartiality anyways despite admitting the nature of it?

She says the aspiration DENIES the reality of the situation, which means it's something she can't obtain.

351 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:40:06pm

re: #350 Walter L. Newton

If you believe anyone can be truly 100% impartial, I have a bridge to sell you.

352 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:40:40pm

re: #330 Sharmuta

I see. Better not superior. I will let it go at that. ;)

353 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:41:45pm

re: #343 Walter L. Newton

Excuse me for arguing semantics with Bat Guano. He's the one who misquoted her, not me.

354 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:42:47pm

re: #352 BatGuano

No- you said "judgment", she said "decisions". She also said she hoped they'd be better, not that they would be.

355 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:42:53pm

re: #310 Sharmuta

Was she admitting life experience has an impact on how one thinks, or was she saying she'd intentionally apply a standard where she shouldn't?

It's really, really obvious from the full context of the speech that she was saying life experiences can have an impact on a judge's decisions, NOT that she would make decisions based on race or any other prejudice.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

It's not an "extremist" speech, and it's not "racist." You may disagree with her points, but she makes them thoughtfully. It's not a demagogue's position at all.

356 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:42:55pm

re: #351 drcordell

If you believe anyone can be truly 100% impartial, I have a bridge to sell you.

The ability to be impartial and the fact that she admits that she can't be, won't be, denies the possibility of being impartial is problematic. No where does she say she strives to be impartial. Everything in her statements indicates that she is satisfied that her Latina cultural heritage will color her decisions.

357 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:43:56pm

re: #345 drcordell

If I'm so obtuse, explain to me what else Alito could have meant

Show me where Alito stated that his Italian immigrant background would allow him to make "better" decisions than a non-Italian immigrant, and I'll cheerfully concede the point.

358 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:44:14pm

re: #332 Cannadian Club Akbar

Highlight the address in your browser and hit cntrl C then in your post hit cntrl V. It's better to link than to cut and paste because a lot of people will skip past a long post so they don't get too far behind on the thread. If they are interested then they'll jump out to read it.

359 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:44:42pm

re: #349 redstateredneck

OR in Mayberry? Yeah, that's funny.

I'm more heavily armed than Barney Fife, for one thing.

360 redstateredneck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:44:43pm

re: #357 Occasional Reader

Show me where Alito stated that his Italian immigrant background would allow him to make "better" decisions than a non-Italian immigrant, and I'll cheerfully concede the point.

Go to the nearest hard surface and beat your head against it repeatedly.
;-)

361 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:45:05pm

re: #313 drcordell of course not; alito was no commie........./

362 Occasional Reader  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:45:08pm

Work gettin' complicated... will have to check back later. Tawk amongst yahselves.

363 Born Again Republican  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:45:54pm

re: #345 drcordell

She is saying it affects her. He is not.

Often I can be reminded of my partiality but then think the issue through and arrive at different conclusions from my bias.

364 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:45:55pm

re: #356 Walter L. Newton

The ability to be impartial and the fact that she admits that she can't be, won't be, denies the possibility of being impartial is problematic. No where does she say she strives to be impartial. ...

Yes, she does.

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.

365 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:46:29pm

re: #355 Charles

It's really, really obvious from the full context of the speech that she was saying life experiences can have an impact on a judge's decisions, NOT that she would make decisions based on race or any other prejudice.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

It's not an "extremist" speech, and it's not "racist." You may disagree with her points, but she makes them thoughtfully. It's not a demagogue's position at all.

She is saying saying life experiences CAN'T have anything but an impact on her decisions.

No where does she indicate that she strives NOT to do this.

366 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:46:33pm

re: #334 Walter L. Newton

I'm not sure why you are making the statement about Mayberry and stuff. I'm on your side on this, and missing the point here. I'll back off, ok, if that's what you want?

hey walter, sorry I started this. It was an arcane reference to andy of mayberry's "opie". You typed OR's name as OP in a post upthread and it seemed funny to me so I tried to joke about it.

367 NY Nana  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:47:16pm

re: #11 pat

And the elephant in the room called 'La Raza'.

368 Buck  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:48:18pm

re: #357 Occasional Reader

Show me where Alito stated that his Italian immigrant background would allow him to make "better" decisions than a non-Italian immigrant, and I'll cheerfully concede the point.

Alito: I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me... Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

Could he be saying that thinking about his own ancestors would help him make a worse decision?

Remember this was in a Job interview....

369 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:48:22pm

re: #364 Charles

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.

Fine...

This... "I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases." still bothers me. She is working toward a new paradigm in judicial decision making.

370 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:49:35pm

Also note this quote from the speech:

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.

371 gtrs  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:50:07pm

re: #364 Charles more reasonable statements to be taken out of context............./

372 dhg4  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:50:25pm

re: #58 Charles

Another Sotomayor ruling on abortion seems to indicate that she's not exactly a dangerous left-wing radical on this issue either: Sotomayor Blurs Lines in Abortion War:

Doesn't this specific case seem more like a free speech issue than abortion? Taken together with today's Taranto, it suggests that she's might very well be a free speech absolutist. Of course that's only two cases.

373 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:51:08pm

re: #370 Charles

Also note this quote from the speech:

Yep, because the nine white men did it, it makes it right, I don't know what that proves except my point that this kind of bias should not be even considered.

374 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:52:13pm

re: #353 Sharmuta

Excuse me for arguing semantics with Bat Guano. He's the one who misquoted her, not me.

I misquoted her where?

375 Born Again Republican  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:52:53pm

re: #370 Charles

Good Quote!

376 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:53:01pm

re: #372 dhg4

Doesn't this specific case seem more like a free speech issue than abortion? Taken together with today's Taranto, it suggests that she's might very well be a free speech absolutist. Of course that's only two cases.

That's interesting -- as I wrote above, I should said "abortion-related ruling" instead of "ruling on abortion."

That free speech case is just more evidence that she's essentially a centrist, not a raving extremist liberal racist.

377 capitalist piglet  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:53:30pm

I find the idea that someone would interpret the law through a lens of empathy with me (because I am female) truly unnecessary. I want no favors. Just view me as an American, the same way you would an American man.

If someone can manage that, I'm satisfied.

378 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:54:35pm

re: #370 Charles

Also note this quote from the speech:

And nothing I have seen yet tells me she is going to do anything but filter her decisions through her Latina experiences, which means her racial makeup and cultural heritage, and I don't find anything right about that.

I will personally oppose this SC nominee and evident appointee right through to the end.

379 turn  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:54:56pm

re: #345 drcordell

That wasn't the point OR was debating. I think they call that a straw man argument. It was the other quote where if you reversed the references any liberal would call it a racist comment.

380 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:54:57pm

re: #373 Walter L. Newton

Yep, because the nine white men did it, it makes it right, I don't know what that proves except my point that this kind of bias should not be even considered.

She said very clearly that she does not believe that people of different backgrounds can never be trusted to rule impartially. Sorry, this does not prove your point that she's a "racist" at all -- it refutes it.

381 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:56:11pm

re: #374 BatGuano

Actually- you didn't quote her at all and I think that's the issue I'm having here.

382 LSD  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:56:35pm

How's her stance on the constitutionality of personal gun ownership?

383 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:56:40pm

re: #378 Walter L. Newton

And nothing I have seen yet tells me she is going to do anything but filter her decisions through her Latina experiences, which means her racial makeup and cultural heritage, and I don't find anything right about that.

I will personally oppose this SC nominee and evident appointee right through to the end.

Again, this is what she said:

...I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration...

That says very clearly that she understands the value of NOT seeing every case through the filter of her experiences.

384 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:57:04pm

re: #376 Charles

That's interesting -- as I wrote above, I should said "abortion-related ruling" instead of "ruling on abortion."

That free speech case is just more evidence that she's essentially a centrist, not a raving extremist liberal racist.

Anb I know you have not labeled me with saying she is a "raving extremist liberal racist," but I just want to make it clear, I don't see her this way either.

But there is enough evidence for me that she will color her decisions through her racial experiences to make me non-supportive of her nomination.

385 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:57:45pm

re: #383 Charles

That says very clearly that she understands the value of NOT seeing every case through the filter of her experiences.

Se see the value, but admits it's not possible. I don't agree.

386 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:58:12pm

re: #385 Walter L. Newton

Se see the value, but admits it's not possible. I don't agree.

Corrected...

She sees the value, but admits it's not possible. I don't agree.

387 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:58:15pm

re: #381 Sharmuta

Actually- you didn't quote her at all and I think that's the issue I'm having here.

For not misquoting her?

388 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:58:50pm

I don't (actually come to think of it, it's never) listen(ed) to Rush Limbaugh (only heard brief snippets.) From what I'm hearing Rush is into his usual over-the-top grotesque exaggerations to the annoyance of most everyone...To claim that Sotomayor is a "racist" is one of those grotesque exaggerations (which can be all too easily refuted.) Ditto for any extremist claims about Sotomayor being some kind of radical Leftist ideologue. Again, very little evidence to support those claims. But being a member of an advocacy group I do find troubling (along with some of her other written statements)...I suspect she will be asked about these statements, she'll explain them, and, I suspect, she'll be confirmed...

389 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:59:18pm

re: #385 Walter L. Newton

Se see the value, but admits it's not possible. I don't agree.

She did NOT say that it wasn't possible. Again, the quote:

I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases.

You keep trying to picture this in absolutist terms, but she qualified every statement she made.

390 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 12:59:34pm

re: #382 LSD

How's her stance on the constitutionality of personal gun ownership?

Not constitutional. It's up to the states.

391 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:00:35pm

re: #387 BatGuano

You misrepresented what she said.

392 LSD  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:01:14pm

re: #390 BatGuano

Not constitutional. It's up to the states.

Any source for that?

393 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:02:12pm

Note: she didn't say achieving that goal was impossible -- she said she wonders whether it's possible in all or even most cases.

Those are thoughtful words, not racism. And I don't see that as even particularly controversial; examining these kinds of issues and thinking about the consequences is what a judge should do.

394 HoosierHoops  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:02:38pm

re: #202 Sharmuta

I'm sorry, but as a woman, I can tell you I have seen discrimination and it most certainly has had an impact on how I see things. It has shaped my life to be a female. (However- I speak out against all discrimination equally, and that includes race and both genders.) I think Sotomayor was being honest. Being a minority can shape your thinking on various issues. Maybe people don't want to admit it. If you do, you're a racist. I guess I'm a sexist then because I'm a woman, and I've been discriminated against, and I see it and it's affected me? Walk a mile in the shoes of someone else and come back and say it hasn't affected your thinking.


Nice post Sharm..lucid as always..
one little thing..If I walk a mile in your high heels I'm going to have issues.

395 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:02:41pm

re: #392 LSD

Any source for that?

Not off the top of my head. I will retract until I can link. Sorry I wasn't prepared.

396 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:04:24pm

re: #389 Charles

You keep trying to picture this in absolutist terms, but she qualified every statement she made.

I'm sorry, your are right, she did NOT say that it wasn't possible. She didn't even go that far, she said that she "wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases."

She wondered if it was possible, So what does that mean? It is or isn't possible?

I still don't agree. But that's alright.

397 LSD  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:04:31pm

re: #395 BatGuano

Not off the top of my head. I will retract until I can link. Sorry I wasn't prepared.

No prob, trying to find a reliable source too

398 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:05:26pm

re: #393 Charles

Note: she didn't say achieving that goal was impossible -- she said she wonders whether it's possible in all or even most cases.

Those are thoughtful words, not racism. And I don't see that as even particularly controversial; examining these kinds of issues and thinking about the consequences is what a judge should do.

You don't, I do, and that's what makes the world go around. I don't think any different of you or the blog, and I'm glad we have the forum here to discuss it.

399 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:07:17pm

re: #394 HoosierHoops

Nice post Sharm..lucid as always..
one little thing..If I walk a mile in your high heels I'm going to have issues.

Well- it's like how my personal experience watching a man fight for custody of his child has colored my view of family law. If I were a judge in that position, I would hope that those experiences would benefit the children before me. That I could know to look at both parents to see what's best for the child(ren) and not just assume the mother is the better parent, as is often the case in family court. Sometimes the dad is the better option for custody. I would hope I could be fair but I admit my experience is what has led me to conclude the family courts are full of misandy.

Should this prevent me from being a judge in family court?

400 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:07:33pm

re: #391 Sharmuta

You misrepresented what she said.

Better? Superior ? more righteous? More excellent?

"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."

401 Walter L. Newton  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:10:01pm

re: #400 BatGuano

Better? Superior ? more righteous? More excellent?

"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."

And you are 100 percent correct, as I posted above...

better = something superior in quality or condition or effect; "a change for the better"

[Link: www.google.com...]

She is saying that her conclusion would be superior to a white male. That is a racist remark, plain and simple. In context with the rest of her speak or standing alone, same meaning.

402 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:10:02pm

re: #393 Charles

Thank you Charles for stating what I have been attempting to say more eloquently. Sotomayor's (and Alito's) acknowledgment that one's judgment is shaped by one's life experiences shows humility. Any judge who claims that their judgment is free of any influence from their upbringing is either lying or delusional.

403 wrenchwench  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:11:39pm

To paraphrase my favorite sentence from the speech:

Understanding; it's teh hard.
404 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:12:42pm

re: #399 Sharmuta

If you're coming into a courtroom with a preconceived biasis favoring one party over another (prior to hearing any evidence), and you allow that biased belief to influence your decision, then, definitely you have a problem...(There are ways in overcoming one's biases -- one can learn, for example, how to overcome or put into place certain checks to minimize, say, "confirmation biases.")

405 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:17:56pm

re: #404 J.S.

As I stated in my case, my bias would be to consider both parents equally and do what's best for the kids based on appraisal without regards to gender.

Take the case of the abusive creationist mother in NC who made her kids pee their pants. I would have given the father full custody. I still can't believe that woman got joint. If the roles were reversed, and he was the abusive one, she'd get custody in my courtroom.

So should I get a courtroom if I still think the family courts are sexist against men?

406 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:19:22pm

re: #397 LSD

If this is not sufficient I will search further. :)
[Link: thehill.com...]

407 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:27:50pm

I guess my point is that life experiences coloring a person's judgment and good decisions are not necessarily in conflict. Usually we see it as a good thing when life teaches lessons, right? We benefit from shared knowledge.

408 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:28:02pm

re: #405 Sharmuta

A) You believe that the courts tend to be biased against men.
B) You cite a case which supports your conclusion. Now, what you could think about is "what would it take to change belief A"? Are you cherry-picking the cases, selecting out only those cases which support belief A? Is your sample truly representative of the courts? Are there cases in which the reverse occurs (an obviously abusive man receives custody of the children)? Could you design a means of testing whether or not Belief A is true? What would you need to know? (these are just "thought experiments.")

409 Randall Gross  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:31:49pm

Walter, I'm going to say we need to apply consistent standards. We didn't condemn Filip Dewinter based on one statement or one association. Judges are not politicians, and they sometimes babble when in the public and not backed up by their chair, their robes, their normal trappings. I expect judges to occasionally trip themselves up in speech when not in court.

When we went after Filip it was numerous statements, numerous writings, numerous associations, and regular pattern of that over a period of years.

So if you have numerous instances or patterns of bigotry backed with proof I am willing to listen, if you don't, not so much.

410 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:33:48pm

re: #407 Sharmuta

Absolutely. We are all products of our genes, our environment and our experiences. And we try to learn from life's lessons.

411 drcordell  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:33:51pm

re: #409 Thanos

Bingo. An errant phrase in a speech is one matter, a record of biased judgment that is apparent in a judge's rulings is quite another.

412 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:37:51pm

re: #408 J.S.

I've already stated I would try to give both parents an equal opportunity to show which is the better parent regardless of gender. I wouldn't rule in favor of men just to favor men. I would favor the better parent. Some cases the men don't want custody, or just want equal time. Some parents can mutually agree on custody and visitation schedules. I would take the children's needs above all else, and two parents who can co-operate despite their separation are always in the children's best interests. But you can't force this, either. Each case is separate and needs it's own treatment.

But that's the point, isn't it? Each case is different, and I've admitted my bias. It doesn't mean I have an equality of outcome mindset over one that would treat both parents equally under the law.

Has she made any comments that would suggest she doesn't favor equality in the process?

413 BatGuano  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:42:08pm

Good day everyone. I worked the graveshift this morning and I am spent.

414 NY Nana  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:43:35pm

re: #137 Occasional Reader

And there is the issue of the New Haven, CT firefighters and her decision....

415 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 1:48:46pm

re: #414 NY Nana

And there is the issue of the New Haven, CT firefighters and her decision....

Uh, that article certainly doesn't lend credence to the idea that she's biased in favor of Hispanics -- she rejected a discrimination suit brought by white AND Hispanic fire fighters in New Hampshire.

416 NY Nana  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:04:10pm

re: #415 Charles

Yes, she did vote that way in NH, but the CT case is what I am more familiar with, as New Haven is a lot closer to where we live, and we get news re CT on our local news. Frankly, I am somewhat puzzled by her verdicts.

I honestly am not in favor of her being a Supreme Court Justice, but in the end, it will be decided by Congress.

And I still do not feel very comfortable about her membership in La Raza, nor will I ever be, as I consider them to be racists, but there have been Supreme Court Justices in my lifetime who have been a pleasant surprise when they were actually on the Court, as they were not as expected.

I am resigned to her being seated, and just hope that she will be another pleasant surprise.

417 loppyd  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:06:04pm

The outrage over the Ricci case is rooted in Sotomayor's unwillingness to issue an opinion. Instead, an unsigned summary order was issued which essentially broomed the claims of Plaintiffs.

This was clearly a case of first impression and would have forced the 2nd Circuit to either uphold the lower court's decision that the Plaintiffs had not been discriminated against or reverse the lower court, creating a precedent.

It is extremely rare for the Supreme Court to grant a writ of Certiorari to a case where a summary order has been issued, but in this particular case, the Supreme Court obviously believed it merited an oral argument and granted cert.

It is widely believed that she will be reversed - AGAIN - by the Supreme Court, increasing her reversal stats.

Her hope that the case wouldn't reach the Supreme Court by brooming the claims backfired and the decision will likely come down prior to her confirmation hearing. I look forward to her explanation of issuing the summary order.

418 loppyd  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:07:37pm

re: #415 Charles

Uh, that article certainly doesn't lend credence to the idea that she's biased in favor of Hispanics -- she rejected a discrimination suit brought by white AND Hispanic fire fighters in New Hampshire.

One Hispanic.

In New Haven, CT.

By summary order. No hearing. Just a written notice essentially saying "You lose."

419 loppyd  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:12:54pm

Obama on Chief Justice Roberts:

Obama said he was skeptical of Roberts’s “deepest values,” his “broader perspectives on how the world works” and his “empathy.”

“He has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak,” Obama said.

420 kynna  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:16:56pm

re: #313 drcordell

What is the difference between that, and this?

SAMUEL ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
(snip)
And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

Did you oppose the nomination of Alito so vehemently?

I'm sure someone's already pointed this out -- because it's glaring -- but Alito never said his experiences and background made his decisions better.

421 loppyd  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:19:30pm

Some insight into the Sotomayor pick.

She is just what Barry was looking for.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

422 Joel  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:29:59pm

re: #421 loppyd

She is a judge that you can bet your last dollar will be a rabid affirmative action/quota type of jurist who will try to bring her peculiar brand of social work to the bench. Urkel disapproved of both Alito and Roberts but he approves of her.

423 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:30:19pm

re: #412 Sharmuta

I was addressing your comment from #399 (?), in which I read: "...but I admit my experience is what has led me to conclude the family courts are full of misandy." In other words, you believe family courts tend to favor women in custody cases (with a bias against men). This claim is what I was addressing...(just be aware, that if you have this belief -- that is, you believe family courts are favoring women -- you may be far more apt to find those cases which confirm your belief...that's called a "confirmation bias." Again, your belief may or may not be true...but you will not be able to arrive at "the truth" so long as you rely solely on a confirmation bias...you'll just keep finding evidence in support of your conclusion. So, at some point, you could then consider "what would it take to invalidate the claim?" or "how could one test the claim that the family courts are biased in favor of women?" (hint: you'd have to use statistics and it'd take a whole lot of work...)

424 Joel  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:33:15pm

re: #419 loppyd

Obama has zero empathy for anyone whose opinions are somewhat diffeernt than his own.

425 Joel  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:35:33pm

re: #416 NY Nana

Most surprises on the Supreme Court tend to be Warren, Souter, Kennedy, Blackmun types - people you think are conservative but turn out liberal.

426 Joel  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:41:20pm

re: #64 Charles

Did you have a similar problem when Karl Rove addressed the National Council of La Raza meeting in 2006? Or when John McCain spoke to them during his campaign?

I did.
One of the many reasons why I hated John McCain (as a candidate), yet people like Powell. Frum, Kathleen Parker, and Peggy Noonan think that the reason why the GOP lost was because they were too conservative. If that was the case how the hell did they wind up with Juan Amnesty McCain?

427 MPH  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:44:56pm

Do note, the Evan M. Tager quoted in the article is a DNC donor and a lawyer. He's also donated to Bernie Sanders campaign (the only unabashed socialist in the Senate or House).

The word "moderate" to Tager probably doesn't mean the same thing as it might to the average American.

[Link: www.peekyou.com...]

428 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:45:48pm

re: #423 J.S.

Not that hard to find statistics. This report shows custody rates in 89-90, and it clearly favors women.

429 NY Nana  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:47:12pm

re: #425 Joel

I agree with you, and to be honest, I have very low expectations re Sotomayor,
and have resigned myself to her sitting on the bench at the Supreme Court long after I am gone. That is one thing that Canada could teach us, as their Supreme Court Justices sit until age 75 only. It is not a lifetime selection, which for us has cost so much trouble over the decades.

430 Joel  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:49:49pm

re: #429 NY Nana

I always felt that there should be a limit of 15 -20 years for Supreme COurt justices. This idea that they have a job for life as if they were {Pope always struck me as absurd. By the way thank you GHW Bush for listening to your fat jowly friend John Sununu and giving us Miss David Souter.

431 loppyd  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:52:58pm

re: #428 Sharmuta

Not that hard to find statistics. This report shows custody rates in 89-90, and it clearly favors women.

That is one esteemed legal journal.

432 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 2:55:21pm

re: #431 loppyd

The table came from the National Center for Health Statistics.

433 loppyd  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:00:05pm

re: #432 Sharmuta

The table came from the National Center for Health Statistics.

I know. It's a 1997 study of 19 states. 11 years old and not thorough.

434 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:09:54pm

Back to the topic of La Raza...I would like to know if Sonia Sotomayor was a member of La Raza, while also sitting on the bench as a judge...

From a New York Times article: "The Code of Conduct for United States Judges allows judges to ''participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon the judge's impartiality."" (this is from an article about 3 judges being criticized for being on an advocacy group's board...link here.)

435 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:13:24pm

re: #433 loppyd

I'm finding this study linked at multiple sources, and I'm not finding anything that disputes that women get the lion's share of custody when joint custody isn't rewarded. If J.S. is asking for proof that my perception is wrong, someone could likewise show me information to prove the opposite besides just me finding a sourced table that shows I'm correct (so far).

436 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:13:36pm

re: #428 Sharmuta

"Favoring women" doesn't necessarily indicate "bias" or a prejudicial bias on the part of a judge. It could simply reflect a structural reality (that is, that women wanted the children, and the men opted out or agreed).

437 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:15:42pm

re: #435 Sharmuta

No, I'm not asking for "proof" that your perception is wrong -- simply asking for thinking about how one would go about (the methodology of) "making your case." that's all..

438 NY Nana  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:15:58pm

re: #434 J.S.

Yes, she was.

439 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:22:47pm

re: #436 J.S.

There are also varying state laws that lean more towards granting joint custody or less so. And I'm not sure the methodology of proving my point is what is important in the case of why I even mentioned it. I was trying to illustrate how a personal experience might shape my thinking as a jurist. I fail to see how thinking there should be an equality of process in family law, and giving a willing father an opportunity to show he's a good parent, should disqualify me from the bench.

But I'm fairly certain women's groups would oppose me in such a situation based on my thinking men get treated unfairly by the system, even though my goal would be fairness to both parties in determining what's best for the children.

440 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:23:16pm

re: #438 NY Nana

Well, well, well. So how/why was this allowed? Will she now remove herself from this group?

441 Charles Johnson  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:37:26pm

Well, you guys can continue to freak out about Sotomayor and take her quotes endlessly out of context, but she's going to be confirmed. Most of the analyses I've been reading about her decisions seem to agree that she's not a racist, not an activist judge, and actually pretty moderate in most areas -- so I think it could have been much worse.

442 NY Nana  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:44:45pm

re: #440 J.S.

Well, well, well. So how/why was this allowed? Will she now remove herself from this group?

I doubt that she will, unless it is made an issue during her confirmation hearing. I have a terrible feeling that she will be treated very gently.

If she were a member of the KKK, I wonder what would happen.

It seems that no one dares say the both The Emperor and The Empress have no clothes.

443 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 3:59:12pm

re: #442 NY Nana

Yes. I've also concluded that she's (in all probability) going to be confirmed...(see my #388 post above). I have not said "she's a racist;" I have not quoted her at all; and I do not believe she's a radical leftwing ideologue. Again, my primary concern is La Raza -- and I'd like to know the specific details (when? how long? was she a sitting judge at the time? what precisely was her status with respect to La Raza? etc., etc.). there could also be some "explanation", I suppose which would clear it up...(was she on that teaching position in 2000-2001 and not a judge at the time of the La Raza membership? I don't know...)

444 suntory_boss  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:05:08pm

Perhaps she ruled "pro-life" because she was bound to by mandatory caselaw?

445 suntory_boss  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:08:07pm

Yes,s he will get confirmed, but because of political correctness. Her comments were NOT taken out of context. She was referring to O'Connor and Ginsberg's belief in the old adage that old men and old women can reach the same conclusion. She then adds, that latina women can come to superior conclusions than white males. That is racist. And nothing you can do can deny that it's racist. You don't know the context, yet accuse others of not knowing the context. she is a RACIST, and a white who said that not only would not get confirmed, but would be IMPEACHED from their current judgeship. So now PCness is going to get a RACIST onto the court. Thanks spineless wimps.

446 suntory_boss  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:14:46pm

So, it's wishful thinking eh? How would the reaction to a white jurist be if he said he WISHED that white males could come to superior conclusions than latina women?

Also, her view on guns was accurate at the time. The recent DC case incorporates the 2nd amendment so it now applies against the states, but hadn't before, so she was 100% right on that.

Doesn't change the fact that she's a racist and she won't be the first hispanic on the court, that honor is with Benjamin Cardozo.

447 Lee Coller  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:33:03pm

re: #446 suntory_boss

So, it's wishful thinking eh? How would the reaction to a white jurist be if he said he WISHED that white males could come to superior conclusions than latina women?

Also, her view on guns was accurate at the time. The recent DC case incorporates the 2nd amendment so it now applies against the states, but hadn't before, so she was 100% right on that.

Doesn't change the fact that she's a racist and she won't be the first hispanic on the court, that honor is with Benjamin Cardozo.

Two comments:

1) It's a mistake to judge someone a racist based on a single comment made years ago, even if taken in context. Find me a pattern of comments (like I easily can with David Duke or Pat Buchanan).

2) DC isn't a state, its under the jurisdiction of Congress, the issue of incorporation of the 2nd amendment has not been decided. There are a number of cases proceeding (such as against Chicago's gun ban) that will decide that.

448 suntory_boss  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:35:57pm

@ Lee Coller

1) It's a mistake to judge someone a racist based on a single comment made years ago, even if taken in context. Find me a pattern of comments (like I easily can with David Duke or Pat Buchanan).
---

True, but tell that to Jimmy the Greek or Larry Summers (on his comments about women in science).

As for your second point, that's valid, but you know that there's no reason why they wouldn't apply it to states if they apply it to the district. It's a mere formality, it is GOING to be be incorporated.

449 dizzy izzy  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:41:01pm

Re #446

Benjamin Cardozo was not "an Hispanic" but of Jewish background, specifically of Sephardic Jewry.

But I strongly object to any kind of racial characterization, as it only validates the entire bogus concept of "race" as determining anything of relevance to the Supreme Court or any other profession.

What we are really talking about is the horrific concept of "racial" diversity as a substitute for intellectual diversity. And underneath that mess lies the larger question of the allocation of jobs in a situation of scarcity and in a fast-changing society. The question is: who is to create new jobs? The State or the private sector? Or both? And if the latter, who makes the decision?

450 suntory_boss  Thu, May 28, 2009 4:53:41pm

Cardozo was hispanic. Are you saying Jews can't be hispanic? My cousins would love to hear that... And Sotomayor's parents were Americans, and she was born an American, is she "hispanic"? Jews don't get to be keep their hispanic heritage, but hundreds of years of being in the US, hispanics can claim to be hispanic? What is it about Jews that makes them stop being hispanic?

451 wrenchwench  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:01:19pm

re: #445 suntory_boss

You don't know the context, yet accuse others of not knowing the context.

The context is right here, boss. Five pages, RTWT.

452 J.S.  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:08:52pm

CNN, btw, is concerned that Sonia could be the one to tip the court and overturn Roe vs Wade...

453 Sharmuta  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:09:24pm

re: #452 J.S.

Good thing the pro-lifers are opposing her then. ///

454 suntory_boss  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:13:21pm

# 451

I read it, and so? It was exactly as I said. She said that she would hope a latina would come to a better conclusion than a white. She presumes that all whites live the same way and have no adversity in their lives, and specifically names the races.

If you can't handle the truth of what she said, that's not my problem. Obama can appoint a latina liberal justice who isn't a racist and I would be very happy about it.

455 wrenchwench  Thu, May 28, 2009 5:19:52pm

re: #454 suntory_boss

and so?

And so your statement

You don't know the context, yet accuse others of not knowing the context.

from comment #445 is BS.

That's all.

456 The Dude  Thu, May 28, 2009 7:55:49pm
Well, you guys can continue to freak out about Sotomayor and take her quotes endlessly out of context, but she's going to be confirmed. Most of the analyses I've been reading about her decisions seem to agree that she's not a racist, not an activist judge, and actually pretty moderate in most areas -- so I think it could have been much worse.

I agree that she will most likely be confirmed and I even agree that it could have been much worse. Nonetheless, I'm saddened to see how low the bar has been set. Hey, at least she has empathy though.

457 Sceptic Tank  Sun, May 31, 2009 8:13:01am

Nice to know BusinessWeek is been read. Hopefully conservative Republicans will lay out valid objections without "political," fears of retaliation. Since they basically have nothing to lose: after all-Amnesty McCain bombed the Hispanic vote to smithereens.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
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
3 weeks ago
Views: 361 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1