Sonia Sotomayor is the nominee for the supreme court vacancy. How do you think she measures up for the job?
I do not!
I don't know anything about her, but why do you think she doesn't?
Wilma haven't you been able to get rid of that faulty keyboard yet? :D
Sonia Sotomayor
David
David, what e, where. That's an o in her name?
Thanks for pointing that out. I wondered if that was right.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/Story?id=7676754&page=1
I find the woman to be a real dichotomy...Yes, she's eminently qualified and came up the hard way, giving her a depth to her level of empathy that others might lack...BUT...Had I EVER stated that I am better qualified to do something because I am a white female who came up the hard way through the trenches, it wouldn't matter HOW qualified I was...The press would be SCREAMING about how racist I am for making it sound like I am better qualified because of my race. I am still waiting for someone other than the two loudmouths (Limbaugh and Gingrich) to bring that salient point up...Even though the two of them are completely correct...It would still be nice if someone more moderate were to make the same comment, so that the Dem's can't skewer them.
I still know little to nothing about her. Besides it is up to the Senate if she is confirmed. What I do know is she has a great resume for the job of Supreme Court Justice. Prosecutor, Commercial litigator, appointed by Bush I, Clinton I, and Obama I. Confirmed by the Senate for the positions she was appointed to by Daddy Bush, and Clinton. She will be confirmed and is qualified for the job as long as she paid her taxes, doesn't have an illegal immigrant nanny. I may not have hired her for the job, but it would not be due to lack of qualifications.
David
Catwoman --- you should have been on the TV networks last night --- they were hitting on that like a dog on a bone.
Too bad I missed it.
So what, other than that would disqualify her for the job? What I am wondering is, isn't it her job to make her decisions according to what the law says? If she can do that, does it matter what she said 8 years ago? Does it matter where she stands on abortion if she decides according to the law? Does her personal opinions or personal life have anything to do with the way she does her job if she does it according to the law? OK, I know that presidents like to appoint justices that will support their beliefs years after they are out of office, but a supreme justice should have no personal likes, dislikes or opinions. Or to be absolutely correct, should not let the personal likes, dislikes or opinions enter into their decisions. Can she do that?
Senator Wilma all those questions will be asked. I look forward to watching her confirmation process whether she makes it or not.
David
She does not look good to me.
Quote from: Wilma on May 28, 2009, 12:59:23 PM
Sonia Sotomayor is the nominee for the supreme court vacancy. How do you think she measures up for the job?
I guess we'll find out in the near future because I'm afraid she'll be a shoo-in. But the again, God works in mysterious ways.
I think her record speaks for itself. She has, in my opinion, proven to be racist or at least racially baised with the New Haven firefighter deal. 60% of her rulings have been overturned, and she believes that judges should be able to legislate from the bench. Her idea of justice is by no means "blind".
Of her overall 232 cases, 3 were overturned, or 1.3 %. Of the 5 that were reviewed by by the supreme court, 60% were overturned.
Does anyone know what the rest of the conversation was in which she uttered those now infamous words about the Latino woman and the white man? I worry a bit when that kind of thing is taken out of context.
By the way, Latino is not a race, it is a culture or an ethnicity. There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, pure Mayan Hispanics, mixed Mexican and Indian Hispanics. It is whatever they call them selves. I fear that as so many people use it wrong, it will become embedded in our language.
I was listening to Rush today as he was talking about himself now being America's Pinata. He is well padded. It will never hurt him. He was also expounding on Sonia Sotomayor. He did slip up, referring to that same statement,...would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white who hadn't lived that life. He left out the word "male." Could have been an honest mistake, but since he has been pounding on her so hard, he better be careful. Since I don't have to vote, I'm glad I don't have to choose. I do agree she is a giant academically. I don't know what to think about the firefighters' issue. Perhaps there is still a minority quota there? I don't know why the test was tossed when no African Americans had high enough scores. I'd have to look up the case.
I don't know Sonia Sotomayor personally, so, I don't dislike her any more than I do any of the other liberal judges that were on Barack Obama's short list of Supreme Court nominees. The difference is that somewhere I saw a video of Judge Sotomayor addressing what I assume was a group of law students. After telling them that the courts are where policy is made, she gave a little laugh and acknowledged that she probably shouldn't have said that when she knew she was being taped. But she did say it, and in doing so, she spoke for every left-wing nut job judge in America. I understand in California, judges have over-ruled the vote of the people on capital punishment, illegal immigrants and keep going back and forth on same-sex marriage. In Washington, SCOTUS -- or what I like to refer to them as the "Supremes" ;)-- expanded eminent domain in a way that would have impressed even the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Castro, and decided that when the Founding Fathers included "the pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, what they had in mind were millions and millions of abortions.
I did find out more about the New Haven firefighters case. It turns out New Haven was worried about not having an minorities considered so they tossed out the test. It was troubling but legal. So the Judges panel had to agree. There was no basis in law not to.
No basis in the law....how about discrimination? It works both ways you know.
It sure does, and reverse discrimination was the first thing that crossed my mind, but apparently in this case it wasn't considered. Perhaps because it wasn't for hiring but for promotions? I don't know all the details. Beats me.
Sotomayor Fits Obama's 'Get-Even' Power Approach
Tuesday, June 2, 2009 10:02 AM
By: David Limbaugh
It amazes me that, for all the attention Judge Sonia Sotomayor has attracted for a racially charged statement in a 2001 speech, few are tying her attitude to President Barack Obama's.
Just as he knew precisely what his 20-year pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was about, and approved, he knew before he nominated Sonia Sotomayor what she is about, and approved.
In both cases, he just didn't want us to know.
During that 2001 speech at Berkeley, Sotomayor said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Obama's apologists claim Sotomayor's statement was taken out of context. But the context of her prepared remarks makes the statement more — not less — incriminating.
The sentences preceding the statement were: "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge (Miriam) Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement."
Read the rest of the story:
http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Sotomayor_Obama_empathy/2009/06/02/220519.html
I heard a little more about this on TV today. They said she was giving a speech to a room full of lawyers.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 02, 2009, 05:12:02 PM
I heard a little more about this on TV today. They said she was giving a speech to a room full of lawyers.
Diane here is the whole speech.
A Latina judge's voice
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 address to the 'Raising the Bar' symposium at the UC Berkeley School of Law
Note: Federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama on May 26, 2009, to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, delivered this talk on Oct. 26, 2001, as the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture. She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." The symposium was co-hosted by the La Raza Law Journal, the Berkeley La Raza Law Students Association, the Boalt Hall Center for Social Justice, and the Center for Latino Policy Research. The text below is from the archives of the La Raza Law Journal.
Sonia SotomayorJudge Sotomayor grew up in a South Bronx housing project and graduated from Princeton University and Yale Law School. She was a former prosecutor in the office of the District Attorney in Manhattan and an associate and then partner in the New York law firm of Pavia & Harcourt. She was also a member of the Puerto Rico Legal Defense and Education Fund. Nominated to the Second Circuit in 1997, she became the first Latina nominated to sit on a federal appellate court.
Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.
I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.
I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos' widow Mary Louise's family, her son and the judge's many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.
I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
Who am I? I am a "Newyorkrican." For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.
Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.
For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir - rice, beans and pork - that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, -- pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo -- pigs' feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs' tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother's house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing lotería, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.
Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Caribbean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.
If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla - pig's intestine - to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.
America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between "the melting pot and the salad bowl" -- a recently popular metaphor used to described New York's diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.
I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.
As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.
Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye's initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick's appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.
Sort of shocking, isn't it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.
This weekend's conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.
For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.
Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then "as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of "acting intuitively." I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes' movement.
While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor -- I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area -- Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.
That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives -- no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father's visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women's claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants' claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.
I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml
I just read the whole speech...she wasn't being racist. She was making the valid point that every persons experience gives them a perspective that someone who does not HAVE that experience will NOT have. Totally valid point.
A white male DOESN'T have the perspective of a latin woman same as a black man does not know what it's like to be a WHITE woman, a person who was born rich does NOT know what it's like to scrape for everything you get same as a person who comes from poverty can't know all the ins and outs of being born rich.
Talk about tryin to make a mountain out of a mole hill..................
Sotomayor's 'new racism' - Dr. Thomas Sowell
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=99904
Some valid points in there...Judges do have to be fair and impartial,still can't make it mean somthin it obviously didn't. I didn't get racism from it.
Her statement is reasonable and intelligent. Try to read her statement without seeking something to grasp at, or not which is what some here will do.
Pam I disagree, the woman stated ,
"And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."
What this says, to me anyway, is that she doesn't think that the law should be applied equally to all persons. That the law should "bend" depending on a persons race or sex.
Well naturally you disagree lol I'd be shocked if you didn't :P Another way to look at that is she meant that by ignoring whatever biases they might have as people of color it COULD color their judgement unintenionally. If you acknowledge you own prejudices they are less likely to sneak up on you and cause you to judge badly.
Hows that for seein light instead of automatic dark? LOL
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on June 02, 2009, 07:29:51 PM
Pam I disagree, the woman stated ,
"And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."
What this says, to me anyway, is that she doesn't think that the law should be applied equally to all persons. That the law should "bend" depending on a persons race or sex.
I believe she is saying if she, or other women, or men of color, ignore the fact that they (they judge) are not white males, and rule as if they (the judge) are white males, then that would be a disservice. I don't read unequal application of the law based on sex or skin color of the litigants.
I read it too. Now that I see what the whole subject was, about courtroom women in general and Latina in particular, I see what she was talking about. She was showing, in her way, that what women bring to the courts is as good as and perhaps sometimes better than what a man does. She gave good examples of how women were treated when judges were always men. Laws do change, often. A woman who didn't have a prayer in a sexual discrimination case, now has a fighting chance.
Personally, I like diversity. The more variety the judges bring to the court, the more depth the discussions will have that lead to the final decision. In court cases there will always be a winner and a loser. If laws were so simple, we wouldn't need more than one court. Sometimes interpretation is needed....for one reason, people lie. If everyone spoke nothing but the truth, stuck to hard facts and there was no innuendo or a lawyer or judge wanting to make a name for themselves, it would be easy. But humans aren't perfect, so we have judges. The Senate will choose.
My question still remains, wht does sex or race have to do with applying the law?
Sex and race have to do with getting UNFAIR laws changed. Some laws ARE unfair, if you have an honest bone you'll admit it. lol
What laws are unfair?
LOL you crack me UP! I gotta go anyway Deadliest Warrior just came on, The IRA against the Taliban. Pretty interestin show, they take warriors from different places and times and use a computer program to let them battle each other to see who would win. I just really ain't that interested in arguin unfair law with ya to tell the truth :P Really is a good show tho! Later.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on June 02, 2009, 07:47:50 PM
My question still remains, wht does sex or race have to do with applying the law?
Will someone get Billy a time machine so he can go back about 400 years!
Gosh, it's nice to have you back in the mix, Flint.
Pam, I wasn't trying to make a joke or anything, just wondered what laws you thought were unfair. By the way, I love that show.
Quote from: flintauqua on June 02, 2009, 08:13:36 PM
Will someone get Billy a time machine so he can go back about 400 years!
Flint, maybe its just me, but I would like to think that we have come a long way in 400 years. Maybe you don't agree, but personally I think the abolishment of slavery, doing away with segregation, application of equal civil rights, allowing women and minorities to vote and hold office, are good things. By the way, alot of these things were made into law by white men. Now, could you please answer my question, and since I don't have a time machine I will repeat it...again...What does sex or race have to do with applying the law? That is, the law that we have today, not what we had 400 years ago.
I don't know what it DOES have to do with it.. but it SHOULDN'T have anything to do with it..
OK I'm back, the IRA whupped the Taliban by the way.
Billy I didn't think you were tryin to make a joke :P Askin what laws are unfair......you all talk about laws you think are unfair all the time!
Personally........let me think....my pet one is the seatbelt law, I cannot STAND to be constrained in any way shape or form and wearin a seatbelt drives me insane. I either have to pay a fine if I get caught or wear one and I think that's a personal thing.
The drinkin age of 21, if a person is old enough to fight and die they are old enough to have a drink.
Most anti-gun laws are ridiculous.....give me time to think about it and I'll think of many more.
Income Tax.........
Quoteallowing women and minorities to vote and hold office,
Never should have been UNallowed in the first place and saying it's "allowed" still makes it something we/they are not enTITLED to do as human beings except for the benevolence of men white or otherwise.
I'm really not one for accepting authority.....I quietly go my own way and get along but if I'm pushed I push back, it's just the way I am. I"m not really broke to lead :P
IRA whupped'em... SWEEET!
You're right, I do talk about unfair laws, guess I just misread your post, like I was trying to goad you or something.
Seatbelt laws, drinking age, gun laws...yeah they pretty much suck.
As for the rest of your post, I'll leave that one alone.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on June 02, 2009, 09:22:09 PM
As for the rest of your post, I'll leave that one alone.
Good Call ~~ ;D
You're right...You better leave he rest of the post lay Billy.. I'll have to jump in there on the "girls side"" and you will be outranked.. LOL
;D
Billy, it shouldn't have anything to do with law. But as long as people will yell racial discrimination or sex discrimination, some cases will go to higher courts to decide whether it was or wasn't. As long as there are still hate crimes or cases that have that appearance, some one will have to decide. If a female says rape and a male says it was consensual, someone has to decide. The whole business about date rape is one example. There used to be such a thing as" jail bait." An adult male who had sex with a minor was guilty of statutory rape, period. You don't hear that much any more. Can anyone really prove she was going 55 when the cops says 85? Did the police officer suggest that a few sexual favors would make it all go away. That's why they are called JUDGEment calls. Some things do call for an interpretation. Who says what torture really is? The Gevena Convention was suppose to, but now? There may yet be criminal charges, even if they just go through the motions. If no interpretation, then what is justifiable homicide? I still think if there is a lot of diversity on the bench the group or person who lost will be less likely to yell discrimination. The media sometimes adds to it by making big things out of little things.
A viewpoint from the center-right, as published on Forbes.com
The Sotomayor Sideshow
By Reihan Salam, New America Foundation
Forbes.com | June 1, 2009
The supposed "battle" over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is in truth a political sideshow, one that is briefly distracting the public from real debates over the future of our badly broken health care system. While I'm quite sure that Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo and Rush Limbaugh sincerely believe that Sotomayor is a dangerous racist, most Americans, including most Republicans, would find the idea more than a little eccentric.
Despite the fact that Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican who actually sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus has some real-world influence, has asked that Sotomayor be given a fair hearing, the loudest and most provocative voices attract the most attention.
Rather depressingly, conservatives who've made inflammatory remarks about Sotomayor, a garden-variety liberal very unlikely to become an electrifying ideologue in the vein of William Brennan, have garnered far more attention than the four Congressional Republicans behind the impressive Patients' Choice Act.
The incentives are clear. Instead of rolling up your shirtsleeves and crafting an effective alternative to Obamacare, Republicans are best served by calling the National Council of La Raza--a small group of professional activists backed by some of the country's largest corporations and foundations--the "Latino KKK." It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Actually, I'll bet David Axelrod is laughing.
One of the most powerful concepts in development economics is the distinction between centralized corruption and decentralized corruption. Under a regime of centralized corruption, a big boss--say a dictator like Indonesia's Haji Muhammad Suharto, who ruled his country for over 30 years--decides that his minions are allowed to skim off, say, 10% of society's riches. Anyone who takes more than that will be punished by the big boss.
Under decentralized corruption, no one sets limits. Every corrupt official is out for herself, and as a result she'll take whatever she thinks she can get. The end result is that the society stops producing riches: The golden goose is left mangled and bloodied on the ground, and the corrupt officials are left with nothing. Centralized corruption is bad. But decentralized corruption is much, much worse.
A similar dynamic exists in party politics. A strong leader can, like Suharto, crush rebellions from below. At the height of his popularity, George W. Bush made a strong effort to make the Republican Party more inclusive. And so those who opposed his agenda of reaching out to Latinos through immigration reform were marginalized. But as Bush's popularity declined, he lost the ability to discipline Republican rebels. Republicans lost their lockstep discipline, sensing, rightly, that they were being led astray.
Since about 2005, when it first became clear that the GOP ship was in danger of sinking, Republicans have been thinking more about their own political survival and less about the good of the party. This explains the crusade against so-called RINOs or "Republicans in name only." A more disciplined party will protect crass opportunists like Arlen Specter, seeing them as a necessary evil or, more generously, as a pragmatic accommodation with centrist public opinion.
The Democrats were in a similar state until 2005, with moderates attacking liberals and hawks attacking doves, in the hope of gaining favorable media attention and campaign cash. This is an admittedly cynical view, and I imagine the individuals involved have a more generous interpretation of their own motivations. But this approach has great explanatory value. When it seemed that Democrats were on their way back to power, the party almost instantly became more disciplined. It started when President Bush began his push for Social Security reform in 2005. The Bush White House had assumed that some moderate Democrats would join them in supporting a proposal that included private accounts.
Yet public opinion was strongly opposed, and Democratic factions started to converge. In short order, arguments over gun rights and abortion died down. Victory was in sight, and that was all that mattered. Now, with Barack Obama at the helm, this tight central coordination is happening from a very politically savvy White House. The Democrats are by nature a more diverse, disputatious lot thanks to the regional, economic and cultural diversity of their coalition. Even so, they've managed to get habitual freelancers like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to knuckle under more often than not.
Can Republicans regain the discipline they need to win back power? Unfortunately, that's a very hard trick to pull off without a leader.
Dr. Thomas Sowell
http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=100599
Very good post Red. That guy hit it dead center.
Judge Roy Moore
Judging by law or feelings?
In July 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama set forth his criterion for selecting Supreme Court justices:
We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.
Unfortunately, this is one campaign promise Obama kept when he selected U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy soon to be left by retiring Justice David Souter. Her objectivity immediately became a key question for the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating her for confirmation. Sen. Jeff Sessions noted that the central question should be whether she allows her personal views to taint her judicial decisions.
A common symbol of justice that adorns many courtrooms and law offices in America is that of a robed woman holding the scales of justice and wearing a blindfold. Justice is supposed to "blind" – but what exactly does that mean?
Judge Roy Moore's classic book about his battle for liberty is now available in paperback: "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom"
We certainly want the eyes and ears of the judge and jury to be open to all relevant and competent evidence without which it would be impossible to discover the truth. But historically the judge was impartial and, in a sense, "blind" as to the person coming before him: rich and poor, young and old, men and women of all races were entitled to equal justice under the law.
Read rest of story:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100628
Miss Affirmative Action, 2009
-Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100835
You can watch the Senate Confirmation Hearings for Judge Sotomayor on C-SPAN 3 on tv or at the following part of the C-SPAN website.
http://www.c-span.org/Supreme-Court-Sotomayor-Senate-Confirmation-Hearings.aspx
Guess that depends on what side of the isle your on diane. Frankly, I don't like her. Even without her comment about wise latino woman. When she said that the right to bear arms was not a fundamental right and that states could infringe upon sealed it for me.
She's a product of the modern day social agenda and
why would she not support that agenda?
America ought to do better.
I just wish she'd go for a Susan Boyle-style makeover. No, looks aren't everything...But, my God, if we're going to have to look at her for the next 30 years (which she could conceivably serve), I'd sure rather look at something a little more put-together.
"""I have friends who hunt"""
Well now...Whoptee-fricking-doo~~ this just changes everything! ::)
Reminds me of hearing Nazi era Germans say "Some of my best friends were Jews" >:(
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103934
QuoteSotomayor, 55, told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. I have friends who hunt."
She attempted to reassure lawmakers that she wouldn't bring "preconceived notions" about guns to the Supreme Court if she is confirmed as a justice.
Liar, liar, robe on fire!Liar ..and....
hypocrite [hip-uh-krit]
–noun
• a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
• a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
She is telling the committee what they want to hear, and it won't matter anyway once confirmed.
The are only to ways to remove a SCOTUS Justice:
*Take the body to the funeral home.
*Impeachment by the Congress,...Uh, that won't happen either.
So she can say I love puppies and children, blah, blah, blah,.....
Nothing will happen to her after confirmation, and she can continue her far-left, mini BHO judicial agenda.
I have watched maybe an hours worth of the hearings and every time she is challenged about a decision that she made the answer is always the same:
We made that decision on a very narrow part of the law, so the real law didn't apply.
I couldn't watch more before becoming ill.
The portions of the hearings that I have watched, have shown me that Sotomayor will not give a direct answer to any question.
But from what I saw, she and Robert Gibbs should enter "Dancing with the Stars".
I've never seen two people who could dance around issues like Soto, and Gibbs. :P
When asked if she believed that people have a "right to self defense", she again danced around the topic and never gave a straight answer...Her answer was: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people."
She did not say that it was important to her or that she agreed with it. A typical slimy, elusive, political response.
She got off on a tangent about her experience with New York law and determining if a person acted properly in accordance with New York's laws regarding their use of force for self defense. That was in no way close to an answer about her belief in an individual's right to self defense.
She seems to be doing everything possible to conceal her personal beliefs and agenda. This, in itself, is dishonest. Not a quality that I look for in a justice who will serve in the highest court in our land.
I was already deeply concerned about this nominee, based upon her prior rulings and her stated beliefs. The hearings have only caused me to be more certain than ever that she is NOT the right person to place on the SCOTUS for a (shudder) life term.
Teresa - Amen to that!
Diane, Sotomayor seems to fit right with your thinking.
Gee, Diane, you are so right. There is more to think about, like, say...THE CONSTITUTION!!! Or say, her answer to why she made that stupid, racist comment about a wise latino woman. Her response was that she was speaking at a latino womens convention of something or other and that she was trying to inspire those in attendance, and give them hope. She doesn't actually believe that a wise latino woman can make a better decision.
So, she was either lying to those at the convention, or she is lying to congress and the rest of america. Either way this idiot, racist woman does not belong on the highest bench in the land.
Diane, it wasn't just one comment or one audience. It was her racist comment, her belief about self-defense, her stance on gun control, and her beliefe that the constitution is a "living" document, that the meaning of the Bill of Rights, can be changed to fit the times, or twisted to fit her agenda. If you are so blind as to not be able to see what her belifes are perhaps some remedial training is needed in the area of reading comprehension.
Diane does not need any remedial anything, Billy...Stick to the facts and leave personal attacks out of it.
Amen Cat.
I was going to leave this alone.....but ........ ;D........
I heard all the hoopla about her "wise latina woman" comment and went huntin. I found the speech..read the WHOLE thing....and came to the conclusion that it was blown a WEE bit out of proportion and taken a WEE bit out of context....imagine that.....She HAS a point with that comment in my humble opinion........someone who has LIVED the life will be better equipped to make decisions about it than someone who HASN'T.....no matter WHAT life it is....the same could be said by a white male...a white woman...or any OTHER color or economic bracket person. If you live it you KNOW it.
Being a judge is about being FAIR and BALANCED, knowing causes AND effects.......making fair judgments based on said causes and effects with an eye on the law and what it does or doesn't allow for.
Now.......do I think she will make a good addition to the Court.....the sad fact of the matter is there is no way we can tell.....people say what will get them the job whether it is the truth or not....just depends on how bad you want or need the job what you are willing to say to get it...then you worry about DOIN it. I personally think that for it to be a FAIR court it has to BALANCED between conservative and liberal for lack of better words. Too much of ANYthing is not good.
While you all are hollerin for a return to fundamental conservative policies just remember one thing....Iran, is run by a "conservative" "fundamental" government. Most Islamic countries are....be careful what you ask for....there were LOTS of BAD things in the "good" ol days too and you all know it.
Being a judge is not about being fair or balanced...it is about the law. A persons race or economic postition has nothing to do with it. They either broke the law or didn't, period.
And comparing the conservatism of iran and america....give me a break. This country became a superpower by standing on conservative ideals. Liberalism and its attempts at fairness and leveling the field is the main causes of the problems that we face in this country today.
As for personal attacks...Diane asking me if I was satisified with anything in my life...I took as sarcastic and personal.
I have learned in my life FROM experience there IS not only black or white but many shades of grey.
I was not comparing America to Iran per se although I don't expect anybody to actually get what I'm sayin. Fairness is NOT the cause of problems because liberals are just as predjudiced in THEIR way as conservatives are in theirs.
The cause of the problems in this country is the either/ or mentality of most people. BALANCE is what we need....NOT either /or.
Until BOTH sides GET that absolutely nothin is gonna go the way it should period.
As a recipient of personal attacks for my views I will defend ANYbodies right to speak their mind WITHOUT the negativity includin YOURS dude.
I have a picture that expresses my view on that subject exactly...a little chihuahua lookin up at a great dane...it says NEVER be afraid to say what you really feel......take a wild guess what the chihuahua is sayin to the great dane ;D With that I'm outa here Joe just got home from Wisconsin so just argue amongst yourselves lol.
Diane,
1- I wasn't the one that asked you what organizations you belong to.
2- I think you are missing my point about the law. I don't mind people having their day in court, as long as it is justified. Folks who get a speeding ticket and then go to court just to have the fine lowered, knowing full well that they were speeding, in my opinion is dishonest. As for appeals to higher courts, I am all for it, so long as it is not because someone forgot to cross a "t" or dot an "i".
3- As for asking a lawyer...lawyers are one of the biggest problems with our justice system.