Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS pick

[JoeTheJuggler]

Obama has nominated federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html

Her resume (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html).

My first impression: this is no Harriet Miers pick!

[pgwenthold]

Then again, she is going to face strong opposition by the Major League Baseball owners.

[webfusion]

She faced opposition from Republicans when she was nominated to the District Court, as they were concerned she might end up on the Supreme Court... and they now end up being absolutely correct.

[Beerina]

Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.


:con2:


Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.


Any predictions? IIRC, the city wrote a neutral test, or what it believed was one, but lo!, saw it didn't pass very many minorities, and threw it out. Of course, non-minorities who passed then sued for reverse racism, and it's now in the oh-what-a-tangled-web-we-weaved final stages...




In any case, don't start applauding too hard, yet:


Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by a Republican President, George "I appointed Souter, remember!" Bush.

[Brainster]

I am not terribly pleased with this quote:

"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 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 experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

That sounds suspiciously like she's not rigorously applying the law to the case at hand, but using the "richness" of her life experience.

[ravdin]

Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.

She didn't write the original opinion. A three judge panel, which she was on, upheld the ruling made by a lower court in favor of New Haven. The panel's ruling was unsigned, so it's not clear who really wrote it.

I'm sure a lot more will come up over the next couple of weeks, so I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I'm not ready to discount her yet based on one fishy decision and one quote made at UC Berkeley in 2001 (I refer to the ridiculous notion that as a Latina, she would more often than not make a better legal decision than a white male).

[Cleon]

We should start a betting pool on how many times we'll hear the phrase "activist judge" over the next couple of weeks.

(I would suggest a drinking contest, but I don't want to be responsible for half the forum dying of alcohol poisoning.)

[Tricky]

We should start a betting pool on how many times we'll hear the phrase "activist judge" over the next couple of weeks.

(I would suggest a drinking contest, but I don't want to be responsible for half the forum dying of alcohol poisoning.)
No bets. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/supreme.court/index.html)
"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written," said Wendy Long, counsel to the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network."

[NoZed Avenger]

Off the top of my head (and going by memory). I know little about her apart from a few decisions and a couple of quoted speeches. The statements made at a few public appearances are troubling.

Beats Harriet Myers in the qualifications department, but no one else in recent memory. Sufficiently qualified by experience, but I would have prefered a bit beefier resume. The other two people mentioned as under consideration -- Diane Wood, Elena Kagan -- would have similar judicial leanings, but appear to be better qualified and have less strong beliefs about making policy from the bench.

I do know Sotomayor was one of the panel that heard and issued an unsigned opinion in Didden on the 5th Amendment Takings clause (Didden v Port Chester) after the big brou-ha ha on Kelo that was horribly expansive at the expense of property rights. Bad, bad decision. Don't know enough yet to make a reasoned decision.

[boloboffin]

And, funnily enough, "Obama's Harriet Miers (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmUwM2UyMGM4ZDBiZDRiNjljOTcwYzU4MmEwNzNiOTM=)" seems to have been the ready rhetorical salvo for any woman he appointed.

[ravdin]

And, funnily enough, "Obama's Harriet Miers (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmUwM2UyMGM4ZDBiZDRiNjljOTcwYzU4MmEwNzNiOTM=)" seems to have been the ready rhetorical salvo for any woman he appointed.

Whatever else one might say of Sotomayor, no one disputes that she's an experienced federal judge. She's not an Obama crony being rewarded with a Supreme Court nomination in exchange for her loyal service. I fail to see how a comparison to Harriet Miers can stand up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny.

[NoZed Avenger]

Yep. Before "Beats Harriet Meyers" in my earlier post about experience, place "Easily, easily . . ."

[Brainster]

Whatever else one might say of Sotomayor, no one disputes that she's an experienced federal judge. She's not an Obama crony being rewarded with a Supreme Court nomination in exchange for her loyal service. I fail to see how a comparison to Harriet Miers can stand up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny.

Miers takes a little too much criticism, and of course conservatives didn't back her up because they were suspicious of her ties to Democrats back in the 1980s, but let's remember, she was the co-managing partner of a law firm with 400 attorneys, the head of the State Bar of Texas, and appeared on several "most influential lawyers in America" lists from 1997-2000. As far as I can see, her main disqualifications are that she knew the president for a long time, and that she was not from an Ivy League school. I'm not saying that she was ridiculously qualified like John Roberts, but she was certainly not ridiculously unqualified either.

[Cleon]

Miers takes a little too much criticism, and of course conservatives didn't back her up because they were suspicious of her ties to Democrats back in the 1980s, but let's remember, she was the co-managing partner of a law firm with 400 attorneys, the head of the State Bar of Texas, and appeared on several "most influential lawyers in America" lists from 1997-2000. As far as I can see, her main disqualifications are that she knew the president for a long time, and that she was not from an Ivy League school. I'm not saying that she was ridiculously qualified like John Roberts, but she was certainly not ridiculously unqualified either.

For a federal judgeship, maybe. Perhaps even for an appellate judge. But for SCOTUS? Yeah, she was ridiculously unqualified for that. I would think that, before being a judge in the highest court in the land, some judicial experience would be required.

She didn't just "know the president for a long time," and it's dishonest for you to summarize it like that. She was a close personal friend and employee of his administration as governor and as president. Putting her on the Supreme Court would effectively mean that Bush had his own private go-to gal on the Supreme Court. Some of us are rather fond of the idea of an independent judiciary.

[Praktik]

I am not terribly pleased with this quote:

That sounds suspiciously like she's not rigorously applying the law to the case at hand, but using the "richness" of her life experience.

I dont see what's all that troubling about these remarks. We'd like to think that judging takes place in a vacuum and that its all a very impersonal, objective assessing of facts and arguments, but just as there is no such thing as objectivity in the newsroom, there is no such thing on the bench.

Every judge - consciously or unconsciously - will be biased by their particular and personal history. After all, its what made them who they are today.

This quote is fodder for the punditry game but not much else.

[linusrichard]

Off the top of my head (and going by memory). I know little about her apart from a few decisions and a couple of quoted speeches. The statements made at a few public appearances are troubling.

Beats Harriet Myers in the qualifications department, but no one else in recent memory. Sufficiently qualified by experience, but I would have prefered a bit beefier resume. The other two people mentioned as under consideration -- Diane Wood, Elena Kagan -- would have similar judicial leanings, but appear to be better qualified and have less strong beliefs about making policy from the bench.

So Clarence Thomas isn't "in recent memory" then? I also don't necessarily agree that Dean Kagan is "better qualified" than Judge Sotomayor - she has a "beefier resume," I think, but she has never been a judge. So really, it depends on what you look at, I think. I wouldn't say either one is definitively "better qualified" than the other.

As far as time on the federal bench goes, I believe Sotomayor has as much or more than any nominee in recent memory. Not that experience on the federal bench is everything, but it's something to look at.

For reference:

Judge Sotomayor:
ADA for New York County.
7 yrs. at Pavia & Harcourt.
6 yrs. Judge for S.D.N.Y.
10 yrs. Judge on the Second Circuit.

Judge Wood:
Clerk for Judge Goldberg of the Fifth Circuit.
Clerk for Justice Blackmun.
1 yr. at Office of the Legal Adviser for State Dept.
1 yr. prof. at Georgetown Law.
14 yrs. prof. at U. of Chicago Law.
13 yrs. Judge on the Seventh Circuit.

Dean Kagan:
Law clerk for Judge Abner Mikva of the D.C. Circuit.
Law clerk for Justice Marshall.
2 yrs. at Williams & Connolly.
4 yrs. as law prof. at University of Chicago Law.
Assoc. White House Counsel
Deputy Asst. to the Pres. for Domestic Policy
Deputy director of the Domestic Policy Council
4 yrs. as law prof. at Harvard Law.
6 yrs. Dean of Harvard Law.
Solicitor General

Harriet Miers:
Law clerk for Judge Estes of N.D. Tex.
29 yrs. at Locke, Liddell, and Sapp.
General Counsel for Tex. Gov. G.W. Bush's transition team.
Personal lawyer for Bush.
Asst. to the Pres. and Staff Secretary.
Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
White House Counsel

Justice Thomas:
Asst. AG of Missouri
Atty. for Monsanto
Legislative asst. for Sen. John Danforth
1 yr. at the Dept. of Education
8 yrs. Chair of the EEOC.
2 yrs. Judge on the D.C. Circuit

[ravdin]

Miers takes a little too much criticism, and of course conservatives didn't back her up because they were suspicious of her ties to Democrats back in the 1980s, but let's remember, she was the co-managing partner of a law firm with 400 attorneys, the head of the State Bar of Texas, and appeared on several "most influential lawyers in America" lists from 1997-2000. As far as I can see, her main disqualifications are that she knew the president for a long time, and that she was not from an Ivy League school. I'm not saying that she was ridiculously qualified like John Roberts, but she was certainly not ridiculously unqualified either.

Conservatives didn't back Miers because of her lack of qualifications, not because she made a few donations to Democratic politicians in the 80s. She may be a capable manager, but she fell far short on concepts of constitutional law when questioned by senators. I saw it as the Senate (then majority Republican) sending a message to Bush that they would not be a rubber stamp for his political appointees.

[Ziggurat]

I do know Sotomayor was one of the panel that heard and issued an unsigned opinion in Didden on the 5th Amendment Takings clause (Didden v Port Chester) after the big brou-ha ha on Kelo that was horribly expansive at the expense of property rights. Bad, bad decision.

A number of her public statements rub me the wrong way, but this case is so far the most troubling to me.

[Brainster]

For a federal judgeship, maybe. Perhaps even for an appellate judge. But for SCOTUS? Yeah, she was ridiculously unqualified for that. I would think that, before being a judge in the highest court in the land, some judicial experience would be required.

Earl Warren. No judicial experience before being elevated to Chief Justice.

[Cleon]

Earl Warren. No judicial experience before being elevated to Chief Justice.

Warren had, at least, considerable experience as a county district attorney and state Attorney General. He had considerable knowledge of case law and judicial practice.

Miers, otoh, was a policy wonk and staff counsel for George W. Bush, who, when questioned, gave the impression to congresscritters on both sides of the aisle that she was completely uninformed about the basics of constitutional law. She had little (if any) courtroom experience, and her role at the "law firm of 400 attorneys" was basically that of a manager.

So I don't think the two are really comparable.

[Brainster]

I dont see what's all that troubling about these remarks.

Suppose John Roberts had said something along the lines that because of his life experience, he would be a better judge than a black woman. Do you think you might see the controversy in those remarks?

But of course, I forget the old rule on this: It's not sexist if it's anti-male, it's not racist if it's anti-white, and it's not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation if it's anti-straight.

[pgwenthold]

Conservatives didn't back Miers because of her lack of qualifications, not because she made a few donations to Democratic politicians in the 80s. She may be a capable manager, but she fell far short on concepts of constitutional law when questioned by senators. I saw it as the Senate (then majority Republican) sending a message to Bush that they would not be a rubber stamp for his political appointees.

I thought the problem with Harriet Miers was that she was unwilling to admit to being anti-choice to the right's satisfaction?

[Tricky]

Since she pretty much coasted through her previous appointment hearing and since a few Republicans, notably Olympia Snowe of Maine, have praised the pick, I think it is a done deal. The most the GOP can do is spatter some mud on her.

[ravdin]

I thought the problem with Harriet Miers was that she was unwilling to admit to being anti-choice to the right's satisfaction?

Nope. The problem was that her answers to a preliminary legal questionnaire put to her by the Senate were incomplete or insultingly brief. The Judiciary Committee requested White House memos (the documents that would shed the most recent light on Miers' legal acumen), which presented three unpalatable options:

1. Hand over the documents as requested.
2. Refuse and cite executive privilege.
3. Withdraw from the nomination process.

1 was too embarrassing and 2 would have been unwise, so Miers voluntarily withdrew from consideration. I don't believe the Senate put her qualifications (or lack thereof) under special scrutiny because of her previous ties to Democrats, or her alleged views on abortion, or even the accusations of cronyism.

[ravdin]

Since she pretty much coasted through her previous appointment hearing and since a few Republicans, notably Olympia Snowe of Maine, have praised the pick, I think it is a done deal. The most the GOP can do is spatter some mud on her.

It's probably a done deal as you say. I still support a rigorous (but fair) hearing. She's about to get a lifetime appointment, and no one should coast through a confirmation for the Supreme Court.

[NoZed Avenger]

So Clarence Thomas isn't "in recent memory" then?

He wasn't in mine. I was thinking Roberts, Alito, Breyer and Ginsberg, but you are correct -- he was only a few years before Breyer, IIRC (90? 91?) I think they're about comparable in experience. I think she has enough, as I said.

I also don't necessarily agree that Dean Kagan is "better qualified" than Judge Sotomayor - she has a "beefier resume," I think, but she has never been a judge. So really, it depends on what you look at, I think. I wouldn't say either one is definitively "better qualified" than the other.

Fair enough. I think her experience is sufficient; it should not disqualify her. I would not expect a big problem on the nomination, really.

[applecorped]

Experience? Obama picked her!

[linusrichard]

Experience? Obama picked her!

This would be a pretty funny line if she didn't have a bunch of actual experience.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Experience? Obama picked her!

I know this is another of your ejaculations that passes as a post, but I'll play along anyway. . .

What is this supposed to mean? Does this mean that you don't think she is experienced?

Did you miss her resume in the OP?

[Tricky]

It's probably a done deal as you say. I still support a rigorous (but fair) hearing. She's about to get a lifetime appointment, and no one should coast through a confirmation for the Supreme Court.

I agree, although frankly I can't see too much there that could really get her in really hot water. I suppose I'll find out as soon as the skeleton hunters show us the bones.

[Tricky]

Actually I'm just shocked that it wasn't Bill Ayers. Where is the old mad bomber in the Obama administration anyway? Weren't they supposed to be best buddies or sumpin'?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm a little curious about her position on reproductive rights. From her resume linked in the OP:
• Abortion (Mexico City policy): Sotomayor ruled against an abortion rights group in its challenge to the so-called "Mexico City Policy," which states that nations that receive U.S. funds may neither perform nor promote abortions. The abortion rights advocates alleged that the policy violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. Sotomayor upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the case, saying that the group's First Amendment rights had not been violated and that it had not been denied due process. On the equal protection claim, Sotomayor wrote, "The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds." Sotomayor did not address the underlying abortion issue. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy vs. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2002)

I'm just curious because I would strongly suspect she is a Roman Catholic (or a least was raised as one).

[boloboffin]

She is a Roman Catholic. She would be the sixth on the bench, I believe I saw.

[JoeTheJuggler]

She is a Roman Catholic. She would be the sixth on the bench, I believe I saw.

Interesting. Our previous archbishop in St. Louis was among those who said he would refuse to give communion to any Catholic (John Kerry, notably) who is publicly pro-choice. Just curious if she'd be subject to that kind of pressure coercion, and how she might respond to it.

[Brainster]

I don't think there's a chance in the world Obama would nominate her if he wasn't convinced she was reliably pro-choice.

BTW, although I dislike that quote from Berkeley, I basically assume that the president should get reasonable deference for his pick. Elections do have consequences, and barring something out of the blue, I would expect her to sail through confirmation.

[Random]

BTW, although I dislike that quote from Berkeley, I basically assume that the president should get reasonable deference for his pick. Elections do have consequences, and barring something out of the blue, I would expect her to sail through confirmation.

I predict a no-holds-barred fight to the finish with a GOP filibuster of Sotomayor. Also watch for all the Republican senators who denounced Democratic judicial filibusters in 2005 and pushed for the nuclear option to either ignore their own prior positions completely or say that some random thing or other has changed.

[ravdin]

I predict a no-holds-barred fight to the finish with a GOP filibuster of Sotomayor. Also watch for all the Republican senators who denounced Democratic judicial filibusters in 2005 and pushed for the nuclear option to either ignore their own prior positions completely or say that some random thing or other has changed.

I don't think so. Unless the Senate Republicans can find an extremely compelling reason (i.e. one that will appeal to moderate Democrats) that Judge Sotomayor should not be on the Supreme Court, I predict they will not attempt to filibuster. They may make a lot of noise but at the end of the day, they'll want to use what little influence they have more carefully than this.

[Brainster]

I predict a no-holds-barred fight to the finish with a GOP filibuster of Sotomayor. Also watch for all the Republican senators who denounced Democratic judicial filibusters in 2005 and pushed for the nuclear option to either ignore their own prior positions completely or say that some random thing or other has changed.

Unless they can get the remaining GOP members of the Gang of 14 to go along with the filibuster, they won't have enough votes to avoid cloture. I would remind you that Bill Clinton's nominees both got overwhelming majority support, with Ginsburg receiving a 96-3 vote, and Breyer passing 89-7.

Essentially, this is not the one that counts; Sotomayor for Souter doesn't really change anything. In addition, the GOP will want to be very cautious about opposing the first Hispanic nominee. They don't need any more problems with Hispanic voters.

If I were to set an over/under on the votes for confirmation today I'd put it at 90.

[applecorped]

I know this is another of your ejaculations that passes as a post, but I'll play along anyway. . .

What is this supposed to mean? Does this mean that you don't think she is experienced?

Did you miss her resume in the OP?


I've wiped most of it up but I was referring more to Obama's experience, not Sotomayor's. She's got him beat by a light year.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've wiped most of it up but I was referring more to Obama's experience, not Sotomayor's. She's got him beat by a light year.

Ah, so your posts are merely off-topic. I see.

In case you missed it, the presidential election was held last November. Obama won.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Unless they can get the remaining GOP members of the Gang of 14 to go along with the filibuster, they won't have enough votes to avoid cloture. I would remind you that Bill Clinton's nominees both got overwhelming majority support, with Ginsburg receiving a 96-3 vote, and Breyer passing 89-7.

Essentially, this is not the one that counts; Sotomayor for Souter doesn't really change anything. In addition, the GOP will want to be very cautious about opposing the first Hispanic nominee. They don't need any more problems with Hispanic voters.

If I were to set an over/under on the votes for confirmation today I'd put it at 90.

I think you know what you're talking about. I think your prediction might be pretty accurate.

[applecorped]

Ah, so your posts are merely off-topic. I see.

In case you missed it, the presidential election was held last November. Obama won.

He sure did win.

[MattusMaximus]

Since she pretty much coasted through her previous appointment hearing and since a few Republicans, notably Olympia Snowe of Maine, have praised the pick, I think it is a done deal. The most the GOP can do is spatter some mud on her.

Politically, this is a very shrewd & smart move on the part of the Obama administration. Hispanics is a group the GOP is losing ground with, and if the Republicans want to have any chance of making inroads with this segment of the population they won't be too hard on Sotomayor. The problem is that if the GOP is too easy on Sotomayor, the Rush Limbaugh's on the hardcore right-wing will scream bloody murder.

I think the Dems are going to enjoy watching the GOP squirm on this one :)

[MattusMaximus]

Unless they can get the remaining GOP members of the Gang of 14 to go along with the filibuster, they won't have enough votes to avoid cloture. I would remind you that Bill Clinton's nominees both got overwhelming majority support, with Ginsburg receiving a 96-3 vote, and Breyer passing 89-7.

Essentially, this is not the one that counts; Sotomayor for Souter doesn't really change anything. In addition, the GOP will want to be very cautious about opposing the first Hispanic nominee. They don't need any more problems with Hispanic voters.

If I were to set an over/under on the votes for confirmation today I'd put it at 90.

Agreed. For this and other reasons noted, the GOP won't fight too hard on Sotomayor - though they may get dinged by the right-wingers for "being soft on a liberal/activist judge".

When Kennedy goes, then it'll be a fight in the Senate.

[linusrichard]

Essentially, this is not the one that counts; Sotomayor for Souter doesn't really change anything.
Not that it's a big deal, but it will lower the age of the "liberal wing" of the Court by 15 years.

[Cicero]

We should start a betting pool on how many times we'll hear the phrase "activist judge" over the next couple of weeks.

(I would suggest a drinking contest, but I don't want to be responsible for half the forum dying of alcohol poisoning.)

The other half already succumbed to cirrhosis playing the Camelot Caroline "you know" drinking game.

[corplinx]

So far I've heard she's a right winger and a left winger. This is highly indicative of the fact that with the cases she had, one can not pigeonhole her views.

I'm calling her nomination a non-story until hearings take place.

[Tricky]

Politically, this is a very shrewd & smart move on the part of the Obama administration. Hispanics is a group the GOP is losing ground with, and if the Republicans want to have any chance of making inroads with this segment of the population they won't be too hard on Sotomayor. The problem is that if the GOP is too easy on Sotomayor, the Rush Limbaugh's on the hardcore right-wing will scream bloody murder.

I think the Dems are going to enjoy watching the GOP squirm on this one :)
I think the Dems will be disappointed by the paucity of squirming. Sure Rush and some of the core will scream, but the GOP will throw up a bunch of interesting "questions", just to establish their positions and appease their core, then knuckle under pretty quickly. Then they'll call it a moral victory.

Brainster's numbers might be pretty correct.

[Cicero]

Actually I'm just shocked that it wasn't Bill Ayers. Where is the old mad bomber in the Obama administration anyway? Weren't they supposed to be best buddies or sumpin'?

Obama is saving Ayers for permanent director of ATF.

[Tricky]

Obama is saving Ayers for permanent director of ATF.
Well, at least he's qualified...:D

[corplinx]

We should start a betting pool on how many times we'll hear the phrase "activist judge" over the next couple of weeks.

(I would suggest a drinking contest, but I don't want to be responsible for half the forum dying of alcohol poisoning.)

Remember my definition of an activist judge. Its the one that rules against what you want.

[kallsop]

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q)

This quota pick doesn't do much for me, but it might be a step up from the gay blade Souter. We were all expecting an anti male, pro illegal immigration, legislate from the bench far left choice, and aren't disappointed. Unless she makes a few howlers in her confirmation hearings, she's in. Presidential elections have consequences.

[SezMe]

We were all expecting an anti male, pro illegal immigration, legislate from the bench far left choice, and aren't disappointed. Unless she makes a few howlers in her confirmation hearings, she's in. Presidential elections have consequences.
Speaking of howlers, you can, of course, provide evidence for her being:

- anti male
- pro illegal immigration
- advocates legislating from the bench

In fact, in the link you provided, she says just the opposite of your third claim but I'm sure you can rebute her statement with other statements she's made.

[linusrichard]

Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made


In other news, water is wet.

But as legal scholars have noted, Sotomayor's statement is entirely factual:

"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."

Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."
(emph. added)

[Brainster]

Jeff Rosen of the New Republic tried to head this nomination off (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085) at the pass a few weeks ago:

But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The SCOTUS blog (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-dynamic-of-the-nomination-of-sonia-sotomayor/) points out that women and minority SC candidates have often had questions raised about their intellect:

Opponents’ first claim – likely stated obliquely and only on background – will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture. The public expects Supreme Court Justices to be brilliant. Harriet Miers was painted (frequently, by conservatives) as not up to the job. The same claim (absurd to anyone who has talked with him) is still made by the left about Clarence Thomas. By contrast, John Roberts was described as brilliant and Sam Alito as exceptionally smart.

I would add that questions were raised about Sandra Day O'Connor's intelligence, never mind that she graduated third in her class at Stanford Law (ironically the top person in that class was O'Connor's later Chief Justice William Rehnquist).

I'm not a lawyer and I've never interacted with Sotomayor. But it certainly seems to me that if somebody told me a guy had graduated near the top of his class at Princeton, and then made editor of the Yale Law Journal, I'd pretty quickly conclude that he was smart enough.

I hope the Republicans don't go after her on intellect; Rosen's article gives them the opportunity to do it obliquely. National Review's bench memos claims she was overturned more often (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU0NGI5MTFjYWI0MWQ2ZGFlMWY5NjBjMzY2YWQyZTI=) than is usual. I'd like to see some backing for that assertion.

Nate Silver notes that 11 current Republican Senators (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/current-senators-voted-35-11-to-confirm.html) (and slightly over half of the then 54 Republican Senators) voted against her nomination in 1998 to the 2nd Circuit. It's mostly the conservative wing, but McCain also voted against her (possibly with a weather eye to his 2000 presidential run).

[SezMe]

Jeff Rosen of the New Republic tried to head this nomination off (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085) at the pass a few weeks ago:
I'd be a tad reluctant to quote that article, Brainster. Not one single person is named who is quoted - not one. The two names are from a legal opinion and from an previous article.

[corplinx]

Is she hot?

[Brainster]

I'd be a tad reluctant to quote that article, Brainster. Not one single person is named who is quoted - not one. The two names are from a legal opinion and from an previous article.

It's going to be brought up, but I certainly agree that the off-the-record nature of the complaints weakens Rosen's case. Like I said, I don't think the intellect question is entirely fair; if she can graduate at or near the top of her class at Princeton and Yale, then she's certainly smart enough.

[Kopji]

I've got some pretty easy benchmarks in Arizona: If Jon Kyl goes against her that's a pretty good test that she's at least a moderate. If Jon goes all ******* crazy she might be more liberal. And John McCain...

McCain released a short statement saying only that he congratulated Sotomayor on her nomination and looked forward to examining her record thoroughly.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/05/26/20090526kyl-sotomayor0526-ON.html

I'll bet. :)

[Kopji]

Well, not hot like Sarah, but she probably doesn't have that annoying accent either.

She looked very young next to Obama this morning. Republicans gotta be taking a pause... thinking that they are going to have her around for a while.

[SezMe]

She's got type 1 diabetes so her life span may be less than one might otherwise expect. One site (http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=103442) says

On average, the current life expectancy of a child with type 1 diabetes is shortened by 7-10 years,...

while others say that medical improvements have reduced that to possibly zero.

[Dr Adequate]

Is she hot? Well, she's hotter than Souter.

[Donal]

She went to my high school, so of course she is brilliant. That's how we roll in the Bronx.

I don't like the decision in the Hartford Fire Department case, but as was mentioned, that was a three judge panel and it was unsigned, so we don't know what she actually favored or why. I can't really fault her on that until more facts are clear.

I like the fact that, on the surface, she doesn't seem to be towing the party line. The Dems that Rosen "interviewed" seem to have that as their main gripe against her.

Not at all happy with her comments at Duke in '05.

I'll have to learn more before I make a final decision, but right now, I am cautiously pleased.

[maddog]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

In other words,
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.

Or in other, other words, she already admits to being
1. A liberal activist judge (drink!)
2. an anti-white racist
3. an anti-male sexist

As a white male, I hope my interests are never in front of her. I'd rather have a judge who reaches decisions and conclusions based on the law, instead of her racist, sexist, "richness of her experience".

[corplinx]

In other words,
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.


I think you are reading way too much into that quote.

[Brainster]

I think you are reading way too much into that quote.

I read it as the kind of casual sexism that women indulged themselves in back in the 1970s with those coffee mugs that read: "In order for a women to be thought half as good as a man she must do twice as much in half the time. Fortunately this is not difficult." But without any sign of wit or humor.

[Dr Adequate]

In other words ... I've noticed that anything following the phrase "In other words ..." is invariably inaccurate.

Also: "So, in effect, what she's saying is ..."

If that was really what she was saying, you wouldn't need to offer up your own paraphrase. It would be self-evident.

[linusrichard]

It's not a great quote, and I doubt if you'll find much in the way of a full defense of it. At the same time, I think too much is being read into it. I would break it down like this:

People who have a richer life experience are going to have a better understanding of the various issues going on in a given case.
Latina/os, on average, have a richer life experience than whites.
Women, on average, have a richer life experience than men.

Now - I don't expect anyone to like those three statements, and I don't much like them either. But they're a far cry from
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.

ETA: Oh, and the Duke '05 comment would only be objectionable to someone who would prefer judges be entirely divorced from reality. This becomes more clear when you look at the statement in context (see youtube video upthread), but even out of context, the statement is just a matter of plain fact.

[Cicero]

It's going to be brought up, but I certainly agree that the off-the-record nature of the complaints weakens Rosen's case. Like I said, I don't think the intellect question is entirely fair; if she can graduate at or near the top of her class at Princeton and Yale, then she's certainly smart enough.

Not according to Jonathan Turley, a frequent quest on Olbermann and Maddow.

"I think for academics there is a sense of disappointment. The President walked by a couple of truly brilliant choices, Diane Wood of the 7th circuit and Harold Koh. Both of which would have been intellectual powerhouses on the supreme court. What we were hoping for was a historical intellectual choice. She has had a lot of opinions to write, but none of her opinions are profound. She has a good political resume. On the intellectual side, I don't believe she will be an intellectual powerhouse. "

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/05/26.php#25941

[aerosolben]

Not according to Jonathan Turley, a frequent quest on Olbermann and Maddow.

"I think for academics there is a sense of disappointment. The President walked by a couple of truly brilliant choices, Diane Wood of the 7th circuit and Harold Koh. Both of which would have been intellectual powerhouses on the supreme court. What we were hoping for was a historical intellectual choice. She has had a lot of opinions to write, but none of her opinions are profound. She has a good political resume. On the intellectual side, I don't believe she will be an intellectual powerhouse. "

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/05/26.php#25941
I think the assertion here is not that she lacks sufficient intellect to serve capably, it's just that she doesn't demonstrate brilliance of a historic magnitude. I'm not sure how many of the justices currently on the bench (Scalia, Stevens, Breyer?) really meet that bar.

[maddog]

It's not a great quote, and I doubt if you'll find much in the way of a full defense of it. At the same time, I think too much is being read into it. I would break it down like this:

People who have a richer life experience are going to have a better understanding of the various issues going on in a given case.
Latina/os, on average, have a richer life experience than whites.
Women, on average, have a richer life experience than men.

(understanding that this is a paraphrase of her words, and not your words) I have to ask -- define: richer? And regardless, I still call BS! Basing these judgments on race & gender is still racism & sexism.

[Cicero]

I think the assertion here is not that she lacks sufficient intellect to serve capably, it's just that she doesn't demonstrate brilliance of a historic magnitude. I'm not sure how many of the justices currently on the bench (Scalia, Stevens, Breyer?) really meet that bar.

According to Turley, Scalia pole vaults over that bar. Advanced age has a way of dulling the intellect. That is why SCOTUS lifetime appointments are spooky.

[linusrichard]

(understanding that this is a paraphrase of her words, and not your words) I have to ask -- define: richer? And regardless, I still call BS! Basing these judgments on race & gender is still racism & sexism.

Yep, I pretty much agree. As I said, it's not really a defense of her words - my only claim is that it's not as bad as your interpretation, and I'll stand by that.

[maddog]

Fair enough - I obviously (though perhaps not as obviously as I thought) stretched her exact words to make a point.

Hmmm... Let me clarify that some more... I mean, in order to make it clear that it is biased, not trying to put specific words in her mouth. i.e. not that she said "it's okay to discriminate", but to show that the idea is kind of implied in what she did say.

[JoeTheJuggler]

In other words,
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men.

Or in other, other words, she already admits to being
1. A liberal activist judge (drink!)
2. an anti-white racist
3. an anti-male sexist

As a white male, I hope my interests are never in front of her. I'd rather have a judge who reaches decisions and conclusions based on the law, instead of her racist, sexist, "richness of her experience".

I think her statement was a realistic recognition of what judges do.

Time has a pretty good article debunking 4 common myths about the Supreme Court. I especially like the Myth #3 piece (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1900851_1900850_1900847,00.html).

[Snide]

I think her statement was a realistic recognition of what judges do.

Time has a pretty good article debunking 4 common myths about the Supreme Court. I especially like the Myth #3 piece (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1900851_1900850_1900847,00.html).As I can't presently make time to research, does anyone know if the statement was part of a written speech, an answer to a question, or something else? It would really help to know the context surrounding the isolated quote before even beginning to form an opinion on it.

[MattusMaximus]

According to Turley, Scalia pole vaults over that bar. Advanced age has a way of dulling the intellect. That is why SCOTUS lifetime appointments are spooky.

I don't think age has anything to do with why I find Scalia spooky.

[maddog]

I think her statement was a realistic recognition of what judges do.

Time has a pretty good article debunking 4 common myths about the Supreme Court. I especially like the Myth #3 piece (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1900851_1900850_1900847,00.html).

Of course a person's life experience and beliefs will inform and impact their decisions, BUT the decisions should start with the law. How a person views the impacts of the law will make a difference, but the law itself should be central to the judges.

More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman [and the fact that she said "Latina" AND "woman" is a bit redundant, isn't it?], I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do". But to say that she thinks that a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male is racist and sexist.

[Dr Adequate]

Fair enough - I obviously (though perhaps not as obviously as I thought) stretched her exact words to make a point.

Hmmm... Let me clarify that some more... I mean, in order to make it clear that it is biased, not trying to put specific words in her mouth. i.e. not that she said "it's okay to discriminate", but to show that the idea is kind of implied in what she did say. But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

And maybe she'd be right, at that.

[GreyICE]

Of course a person's life experience and beliefs will inform and impact their decisions, BUT the decisions should start with the law. How a person views the impacts of the law will make a difference, but the law itself should be central to the judges.

More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman [and the fact that she said "Latina" AND "woman" is a bit redundant, isn't it?], I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do". But to say that she thinks that a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male is racist and sexist.

I think you are a liar. Let me show you why:
More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Does everyone see your lie yet?
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience
her experience
her
she had said
GreyICE does not normally refer to himself in the third person.

[boloboffin]

f8Jce236HZ8

The new rhetorical track: attacking Sotomayor as a "racist."

The Republicans in the Congress need to send these people a message: Stop Helping.

ETA: And as some have said, Sotomayor in for Souter doesn't change much at all on the Court. It's when Scalia falls over from a heart attack and Obama appoints Diane Wood that all hades will break loose.

[Ziggurat]

But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

Three problems with that.

First off, she said she "hopes" this would be the case: she's not simply expressing what she sees as a reality we have to adapt to and live with, but a preferred outcome.

Second, she's not simply talking about racial discrimination cases, but much more generally.

Thirdly, she's still taking a position that there are qualities intrinsic to one's race. And that is a dangerous position to take, because it is (ironically) the fundamental justification used to justify racism in the first place. There may be disagreements between her and, say, the KKK about what those qualities may be, but it still looks an awful lot like she's still accepted the fundamental premise of essential racial differences. If she does not believe that to be true, then she has done her own views a disservice by expressing them this way.

[Dr Adequate]

Three problems with that.

First off, she said she "hopes" this would be the case: Why is that a problem?

Second, she's not simply talking about racial discrimination cases, but much more generally. Evidence? Relevance?

Thirdly, she's still taking a position that there are qualities intrinsic to one's race. Again, I should like to ask for evidence, and I should also like to point out that this contradicts your first point.

[egslim]

It's not a great quote, and I doubt if you'll find much in the way of a full defense of it. At the same time, I think too much is being read into it.
Quite possibly.

People who have a richer life experience are going to have a better understanding of the various issues going on in a given case.
I probably agree, but the word "richer" is vague and poorly (if at all) defined.

Latina/os, on average, have a richer life experience than whites.
Bang - an unsupported statement with a poorly defined meaning.

It's hard to disprove a statement whose meaning is so unclear. But if we agree that an education and successfull employment add to the richness of ones life experience, then on those two factors Latinos have, on average, a poorer life experience than whites.

Women, on average, have a richer life experience than men.
Another unsupported statement with poorly defined meaning. On average though, Latinas are worse off in both education and employment than Latinos.

On the other hand, maybe she only referred to herself, instead of Latinos and women in general. In which case she's arguably right: Coming from a statistically disadvantaged background, her life experience is likely to be richer than that of someone who has reached the same position from a better starting point.

Except that in this world of political correctness, to be promoted a white male has to be (perceived as) the best of all available applicants. A Latina merely has to seem good, and then her gender and race do the rest. We'll never know if Sotomayor's ability is superior to that of other candidates, but it would be naïve to assume it is. And that substracts substantially from the richness of her life experience.

Personally I'd expect her to do fine, and if not, there are 8 other justices to balance her out. But the appearance that she was selected for her race and gender hurts my confidence more than it helps.

[SezMe]

I think you are a liar.
Going to far. maddog may have a different perspective than you but that does not make him a liar.

[Ziggurat]

Why is that a problem?

It's a problem with your argument about what she meant, not with her statement itself.

Evidence? Relevance?

I've seen nothing about the quote suggesting it deals with discrimination cases in particular. Evidence that she is talking about discrimination cases?

Again, I should like to ask for evidence, and I should also like to point out that this contradicts your first point.

No, it doesn't contradict the first point at all. You're missing something about what I said if you think it does.

As for the evidence, well, it's the quote itself. She's talking about the differences in judgments made by people of different genders and races, and saying that she thinks that they will make different judgments. Because those are the only qualities of this hypothetical person she refers to, we can reasonably conclude that they are the reason for why she hopes that the latina will make a better judgment than the white man, and that only makes sense if the race and gender have essential qualities to them. If she did not mean to imply this, then she should not have said what she said, but it follows rather directly from her words.

[maddog]

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

I think you are a liar. Let me show you why:

Does everyone see your lie yet?

GreyICE does not normally refer to himself in the third person.

First of all, an honest disagreement does not make one a liar. That's a pretty harsh accusation, and I don't like it.

Second, the fact that she was speaking impersonally, or in the third person, indicates, if anything, that she intends her comment more generally. As in, ANY Latina would be better than ANY white male. Or, more likely, not "any" Latina better than "any" white male, but "in general" Latinas would be better than white males. Either way, this is both sexism and racism.

If she had said "I" will be better than "those" white males, then it is an assessment of specific people, and is not (necessarily) racist or sexist.

Your emphasis proves my point. And your accusation of "liar" is both rude and foolish.

[GreyICE]

Going to far. maddog may have a different perspective than you but that does not make him a liar.

No, he lied. He attributed, to a woman, a quote she never said. That is a liar. He lied about the origins of his quote. Alternatively, he lied about what she said.

If he had sourced this, we merely could say that he was credulous, but unsourced, he leaves us with no option.

Sez, this is not a point of view. This is not a perspective. No one refers to themselves in the third person naturally. Not. Ever. When you attribute to someone a quote that that person never said, you have lied. He gave us a quote. He says, directly, that Sotomayor said it. Sotomayor did NOT say it, unless she follows rules of English that are so alien to be nearly impossible (try to construct a sentence about yourself using that grammar, then say it out loud).

Would you prefer a different term? Falsehood? Untruth? Deliberate deception? Attempt to mislead?

You know what is to far? It is too far to try and create a dialogue based on a statement that someone supposedly made, when they never made that statement. It is too far to attack a woman and call her racist for something she never said. It is too far to boldly and doggedly hold to your lie.

That is too far. Me calling a liar a liar isn't too far, it's the TRUTH. It's sad and pathetic the TRUTH is less palatable to you than a liar.

[maddog]

Going to far. maddog may have a different perspective than you but that does not make him a liar.

Thank you!

[marksman]

As someone who has appeared before Sotomayor, I think she's a fine pick. I think she will be confirmed and the little potshots I've seen (even the troubling statement about the hoped-for superior wisdom of Hispanic women over Caucasian men) don't make me think otherwise (and I am a Caucasian man).

But I agree with those who say she is not likely to be a luminary. Her opinions are well-written and insightful, but they don't delve into the law the way great justices -- like Cardozo, Brandeis, and Learned Hand -- could. In this respect, she is probably a good replacement for Souter who also was an astute technical lawyer more than a philosophical powerhouse.

The left wing of the Court, however, could use a "deep thinker" and a masterful rhetorician. Scalia may (or may not be) a rightwing ideologue, but he is an evocative writer, has a biting prose and although I often disagree with his conclusions, I don't doubt that he thinks hard about these issues. Alito too has the potential of masterful writer (whatever you think of his politics). Kennedy has also become a thoughtful and intellectual voice for harmony and moderation in his role as deciding vote (just as O'Connor -- my favorite Justice in my lifetime -- had been). But I have been disappointed in the prosaic abilities of the left wing of the court. Ginsberg and Breyer were supposed to be the rhetorical stars, but I've found their opinions surprisingly lackluster.

Kennedy responds well to cogent, passionate and intellectual arguments. Brennan, Blackmun and Marshall could do that on a consistent basis until failing health robbed them of those faculties. I simply don't see that level of discourse from Stevens or Ginsberg, and too infrequently from Breyer. I don't anticipate it from Sotomayer either.

I'm hoping Obama's next pick, assuming he gets one, will find someone who can serve as an eloquent legal theorician for the left wing of the Court.

[GreyICE]

Thank you!

Care to defend the lie? Why did you choose to pretend Sotomayor said that?

[linusrichard]

@marksman: Sorry, but a nitpick: Judge Hand was never a justice.

[maddog]

But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

And maybe she'd be right, at that.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]


It's quite possible that you are correct, if her comment, in full context, is related to discrimination cases. I haven't seen the full context of the comment, though. You?

[GreyICE]

It's quite possible that you are correct, if her comment, in full context, is related to discrimination cases. I haven't seen the full context of the comment, though. You?

The full context would be that Sotomayor never said it.

So when you say she said it, that would kind of make context irrelevant, as there's no context where she makes a statement she didn't make.

[maddog]

Of course a person's life experience and beliefs will inform and impact their decisions, BUT the decisions should start with the law. How a person views the impacts of the law will make a difference, but the law itself should be central to the judges.

More importantly, it would have been fine if she had said something like "as a Latina woman [and the fact that she said "Latina" AND "woman" is a bit redundant, isn't it?], I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do". But to say that she thinks that a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than a white male is racist and sexist. {additional emphasis added}

Care to defend the lie? Why did you choose to pretend Sotomayor said that?

Care to differentiate between a lie and a hypothetical? Care to apologize?

[GreyICE]

{additional emphasis added}



Care to differentiate between a lie and a hypothetical? Care to apologize?

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

[boooeee]

It's quite possible that you are correct, if her comment, in full context, is related to discrimination cases. I haven't seen the full context of the comment, though. You?


Full text: Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)

The relevant quote is on page 5. My reading of the context is that she was speaking specifically to discrimination cases. I don't find anything especially troubling about her remarks (in that context).

[marksman]

@marksman: Sorry, but a nitpick: Judge Hand was never a justice.

Quite true. He is one of many great legal thinkers who didn't make it past the Court of Appeals. And folks like Cardozo who did make it to the Supreme Court did their best writing while in other courts.

[GreyICE]

Fair enough - I obviously (though perhaps not as obviously as I thought) stretched her exact words to make a point.


But, maybe the point is not clear enough. Maybe you feel persecuted.

Lets examine the bolded bit.

Her. Exact. Words.

Yes, clearly a hypothetical. Clearly you never meant anyone to think she said that. About herself. There was no other interpretation possible, you gave us none. But your interpretation was an utter lie! It was based on falsehoods!

This is exactly why we don't debate with quotes, but you chose to go there! It was your choice! You went into a place where lying is synonymous with breathing, and then decided to get angry when you got called out on it.

Now can you stop quoting a goddamn sentence and get back to me when you have real objections about real decisions made by a real judge on real cases?

Because reality is the opposite of a lie.

[maddog]

The full context would be that Sotomayor never said it.

So when you say she said it, that would kind of make context irrelevant, as there's no context where she makes a statement she didn't make.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/05/sonia_sotomayor_and_the_economics_of_gender.php
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4703
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/05/sotomayors_wise_latina_line_ma.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7685284&page=1
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/27/gingrich-sotomayor-racist-should-withdraw-nomination/


What didn't she say?

[linusrichard]

GreyICE, what are you doing?

Her exact words:

"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."

This, she actually said. She said these words. These are the exact words she said, and the "exact words" maddog stretched to make a point. One source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1).

ETA: For completeness, this is maddog's "stretching" of the words:
In other words,
1. Personal point of view matters more than the law.
2. It is okay to discriminate Latinas against whites.
3. It is okay to discriminate women against men. /EDIT

Hypothetical:

"as a Latina woman, I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do."

That's what maddog would have preferred she would have said.

Where is the "lie"? What are you doing?

[maddog]

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

You are wrong.
You are full of BS.
You have one more chance to get a grip on exactly what she said:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
The other things are pretty clearly my rewordings or hypotheticals - as everybody else here seems to have no difficulty figuring out.

[Cicero]

I don't think age has anything to do with why I find Scalia spooky.

Neither is it the reason I find Ginsburg spooky.

[GreyICE]

GreyICE, what are you doing?

Her exact words:

"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."

This, she actually said. She said these words. These are the exact words she said, and the "exact words" maddog stretched to make a point. One source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1).

Hypothetical:

"as a Latina woman, I will bring a different perspective to the court, since I have a different background than the white men, the black man and the white woman do."

That's what maddog would have preferred she would have said.

Where is the "lie"? What are you doing?

The lie is that it's about her. The lie is that she said those things regarding herself. The lie is that a quote shows her to be racist and sexist. These are not vapid accusations. This is not me interpreting his statements. He made a goddamn bullet-pointed list.

Now it's all hypotheticals. Now it's all smoke and mirrors. Before it was bullet points and accusations and 'her exact words' and all that jazz.

Doesn't it occur to you that when one person is busy obfuscating that way that they're lying to you? Doesn't it set your skepti-sense tingling when people start talking about hypotheticals when less than a page ago they were talking about bullet points and hard facts?

Aren't you tired of the Republican spin doctors spreading these lies? I am. I am goddamn tired of it. I swore back when Kerry was running, and failed because of lies, that the next time I saw a goddamn liar spinning goddamn lies about someone, liberal or conservative, with the usual load of misquotes, misattributed nonsense, out of context jazz, and other garbage, that I was not going to explain their lies, and show how they were lying. I have tried politeness, and that was 2004. It doesn't work, because these liars don't stop. They merrily skip away, content in the little bubble of lies, sure they are interpreting things correctly.

I was going to call a spade a spade, a liar a liar. Is that a worse insult than racism? Than sexism? Certainly I think calling someone a Klansman is worse, but that's effectively what he did (different color for the Klan, 'tis true).

Liar? It's not even an insult. It's just a fact.

[Cleon]

I will just say that when it's time for Congress to debate her appointment, I hope they'll do more than fight over the word-parsing of a single eight-year-old sentence.

Regrettably, I find that unlikely.

[Cicero]

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

Does JREF pay you to be the official arbiter for determining what are "lies" and "trolls?" I'm sure you have had sufficient training in both areas.

[DDWW]

What I require is a Supreme Court Judge who will act like a Professional Football referee.

Try to call the game as fairly as possible using the existing approved rules. If you don’t like the rule petition the owners to change it. Do not change, bend, reinterpret, etc. the rules in the middle of a game to make it “fair”. (Such as allowing the Detroit Lions 14 players on the field.)

It should be the most boring job in the worlds. When asked, “Can we do this?” The Supreme Court should just open up the rule book and say; “Yes, you can. No, you can’t, or That subject is not covered so should be considered a states rights issue.”

Other than that I do not care what party they come from.

Is this too much to ask?

DDWW

[Cicero]

I will just say that when it's time for Congress to debate her appointment, I hope they'll do more than fight over the word-parsing of a single eight-year-old sentence.

Regrettably, I find that unlikely.

Right. I wonder why Senator Obama voted no on both Alito and Roberts? Obama joined a filibuster against Alito. Were they not both qualified for the position? Or was it their conservative views that demanded Obama to reject them?

[maddog]

Full text: Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)

The relevant quote is on page 5. My reading of the context is that she was speaking specifically to discrimination cases. I don't find anything especially troubling about her remarks (in that context).

Thanks for the link -- it is considerably different in that context than out of it. It shows that Dr. Adequate was quite correct in what he said.

Unfortunately, it also shows the damage that can be done when a single comment is taken out of context, as "the media" has consistently done here. By extension, I have done it too, since "the media" was the source of the quote in this discussion.

[Cleon]

Right. I wonder why Senator Obama voted no on both Alito and Roberts? Obama joined a filibuster against Alito. Were they not both qualified for the position? Or was it their conservative views that demanded Obama to reject them?

Why don't you start a thread on that subject, if it interests you?

[maddog]

GreyICE: Congratulations! In the five plus years I have been on JREF, you are the FIRST person on my "ignore" list! Have a nice life.

[Cicero]

Why don't you start a thread on that subject, if it interests you?

How Senator Obama debated the appointments of Roberts and Alito is relevant to how Congress will debate Sonia. Since, as you say, it is "unlikely" that there is any reason to expect bi-partisan compliance over this nominee, just as it was "unlikely" to expect bi-partisan compliance over Alito and Roberts.

[Cleon]

How Senator Obama debated the appointments of Roberts and Alito is relevant to how Congress will debate Sonia. Since, as you say, it is "unlikely" that there is any reason to expect bi-partisan compliance over this nominee, just as it was "unlikely" to expect bi-partisan compliance over Alito and Roberts.

No, not particularly relevant to this thread or what I posted. As I said, if you want to start a thread on Alito & Roberts, you're free to do so. This thread is about Sotomayor, not Alito, Roberts, or Obama.

IOW...No, I will not take your bait, but good try, chief.

[Ziggurat]

The lie is that it's about her. The lie is that she said those things regarding herself.

He never made that claim. He made a statement about what he would have preferred her to say, which did include making statements about herself. But the whole point about such a statement is that it is different from what she actually said. Everyone knows this. Now, you may argue that changes he would have liked are unnecessary, counterproductive, or confusing, or that his reason for not liking the original statement are unfounded, but there's no lie involved. Really, GreyICE, you've made this unnecessarily personal.

[linusrichard]

The lie is that it's about her. The lie is that she said those things regarding herself.
Seriously? That's the lie? Seriously? I think that's kind of an insult to everyone else in this thread, assuming we're not just going to scroll up and notice that, you know, there's a hole in the ground where the goalposts used to be, and where they are now, the grass is all pulled up and you're kind of leaning on them and sweating a little.
E.g.:
No, he lied. He attributed, to a woman, a quote she never said. That is a liar. He lied about the origins of his quote. Alternatively, he lied about what she said.

If he had sourced this, we merely could say that he was credulous, but unsourced, he leaves us with no option.

Sez, this is not a point of view. This is not a perspective. No one refers to themselves in the third person naturally. Not. Ever. When you attribute to someone a quote that that person never said, you have lied. He gave us a quote. He says, directly, that Sotomayor said it. Sotomayor did NOT say it, unless she follows rules of English that are so alien to be nearly impossible (try to construct a sentence about yourself using that grammar, then say it out loud).

Would you prefer a different term? Falsehood? Untruth? Deliberate deception? Attempt to mislead?

You know what is to far? It is too far to try and create a dialogue based on a statement that someone supposedly made, when they never made that statement. It is too far to attack a woman and call her racist for something she never said. It is too far to boldly and doggedly hold to your lie.

That is too far. Me calling a liar a liar isn't too far, it's the TRUTH. It's sad and pathetic the TRUTH is less palatable to you than a liar.

Care to defend the lie? Why did you choose to pretend Sotomayor said that?

The full context would be that Sotomayor never said it.

So when you say she said it, that would kind of make context irrelevant, as there's no context where she makes a statement she didn't make.

No, you lied. Period, the end. I'm tired of people trying to sugar coat their lies.

We were clearly being told that Sotomayor said this. She did not. You are a liar.

And then we have this last angry post, conveniently edited:
Yes, clearly a hypothetical. Clearly you never meant anyone to think she said that. About herself.
Now, only you know whether the underlined bit was what you added in the edit. But man, does that look suspicious.

The lie is that a quote shows her to be racist and sexist.
That's not a lie; that's an opinion. An opinion that, when challenged, maddog himself graciously conceded the point that he was probably taking the quote too far. Jesus Christ, what are you doing?

These are not vapid accusations. This is not me interpreting his statements. He made a goddamn bullet-pointed list.
Which he basically retracted, if you were paying attention.

Now it's all hypotheticals. Now it's all smoke and mirrors. Before it was bullet points and accusations and 'her exact words' and all that jazz.
What are you doing? It's pretty clear you owe maddog an apology, if not the entire g.d. thread.

Doesn't it occur to you that when one person is busy obfuscating that way that they're lying to you? Doesn't it set your skepti-sense tingling when people start talking about hypotheticals when less than a page ago they were talking about bullet points and hard facts?

Aren't you tired of the Republican spin doctors spreading these lies? I am. I am goddamn tired of it. I swore back when Kerry was running, and failed because of lies, that the next time I saw a goddamn liar spinning goddamn lies about someone, liberal or conservative, with the usual load of misquotes, misattributed nonsense, out of context jazz, and other garbage, that I was not going to explain their lies, and show how they were lying. I have tried politeness, and that was 2004. It doesn't work, because these liars don't stop. They merrily skip away, content in the little bubble of lies, sure they are interpreting things correctly.

I was going to call a spade a spade, a liar a liar. Is that a worse insult than racism? Than sexism? Certainly I think calling someone a Klansman is worse,
Here, there's nothing for me to disagree with. Except that it has nothing to do with maddog's posts in this thread.
but that's effectively what he did (different color for the Klan, 'tis true).
I don't agree, but whatever.
Liar? It's not even an insult. It's just a fact.
It is hard to apologize. It is probably even harder to admit you were wrong. But seriously, that's the only thing to do here. Come on. What are you doing?

[SezMe]

What I require is a Supreme Court Judge who will act like a Professional Football referee.

Try to call the game as fairly as possible using the existing approved rules. If you don’t like the rule petition the owners to change it. Do not change, bend, reinterpret, etc. the rules in the middle of a game to make it “fair”. (Such as allowing the Detroit Lions 14 players on the field.)

It should be the most boring job in the worlds. When asked, “Can we do this?” The Supreme Court should just open up the rule book and say; “Yes, you can. No, you can’t, or That subject is not covered so should be considered a states rights issue.”

Other than that I do not care what party they come from.

Is this too much to ask?

DDWW
Yes, it is. In fact, it is a dumb question posed with a stupid analogy.

The law is a human construct with all the frailties, power, ambiguities and depth inherent in the human condition. Moreover, it must be administered by fallible humans under every real-world circumstance you can imagine.

In that light, to think that the law could be interpreted and applied by a robot looking in a rule book is utter inanity. At best.

[DDWW]

I didn't insult you. Please don't do it to me.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course a person's life experience and beliefs will inform and impact their decisions, BUT the decisions should start with the law. How a person views the impacts of the law will make a difference, but the law itself should be central to the judges.
Did you read the piece I linked to? It wasn't just that judges draw on their life experiences and beliefs, but that the role of a judge is more than the mechanical application of settled law. As the essay pointed, the very reason these cases reach the Supreme Court (and even the decision of the S.C. to hear them) is that they often hinge on law that isn't very settled or clear, or that is overdue for change.

We're not interested in having machines take the place of the Supreme Court.

Of course who a person is matters wrt making law. If you care to test this idea, ask if a Congress composed of black people would have allowed slavery to continue for the first nearly 100 years of the existence of our country.

[Dr Adequate]

It's a problem with your argument about what she meant, not with her statement itself. Why? Explain.

I've seen nothing about the quote suggesting it deals with discrimination cases in particular. Evidence that she is talking about discrimination cases? But this seems self-evident. Where is the evidence that she means something else?

No, it doesn't contradict the first point at all. You're missing something about what I said if you think it does. What am I missing? So far as I can see, your first and third points do contradict one another completely, but if you wish to clarify your points, I'm listening.

As for the evidence, well, it's the quote itself. She's talking about the differences in judgments made by people of different genders and races, and saying that she thinks that they will make different judgments. Because those are the only qualities of this hypothetical person she refers to, we can reasonably conclude that they are the reason for why she hopes that the latina will make a better judgment than the white man, and that only makes sense if the race and gender have essential qualities to them. If she did not mean to imply this, then she should not have said what she said, but it follows rather directly from her words. But at no point did she say that this was intrinsic to her race and sex.

It is, really, likely, given the world we live in, that a Hispanic woman will know more about discrimination, from the sharp end, than a white man. We may wish that it was not so, but so it is.

[JoeTheJuggler]

What I require is a Supreme Court Judge who will act like a Professional Football referee.

Try to call the game as fairly as possible using the existing approved rules. If you don’t like the rule petition the owners to change it. Do not change, bend, reinterpret, etc. the rules in the middle of a game to make it “fair”. (Such as allowing the Detroit Lions 14 players on the field.)

It should be the most boring job in the worlds. When asked, “Can we do this?” The Supreme Court should just open up the rule book and say; “Yes, you can. No, you can’t, or That subject is not covered so should be considered a states rights issue.”


Luckily, the way you wish the Supreme Court were established isn't the way it is.

You can read up on American history and see that the SCOTUS has almost never been as you describe it.

In fact, if that's the way it was, there wouldn't even be a need for a Supreme Court by and large. If the "rule book" were so clear, then these cases wouldn't work their way up through appellate courts and still be contested. The fact is, at any moment, some points of law are not settled, and it's up to this institution to make the call.

[Ziggurat]

But perhaps what she was trying to "imply" is not that she thinks that it's OK to discriminate, but that a Hispanic woman might tend to have a better grasp on why it is not OK to discriminate.

And maybe she'd be right, at that.

Why? Explain.

Your argument was that she was merely stating what she thought might be the reality we have to work with. But she is doing more than that: she is expressing a preference.

What am I missing? So far as I can see, your first and third points do contradict one another completely, but if you wish to clarify your points, I'm listening.

One can oppose consequences of discrimination without opposing the fundamental axioms needed to justify it. Thus, no contradiction. She seems to be very interested in the former, but not so much the latter.

But at no point did she say that this was intrinsic to her race and sex.

Not explicitly. And yet, that remains a logical conclusion from her words. To repeat and clarify on what I said before, it's quite possible that she does not believe in such conclusions, but if so, she has done her own position a disservice by the way she has framed her argument. That is not a cardinal sin, but it is a mistake.

It is, really, likely, given the world we live in, that a Hispanic woman will know more about discrimination, from the sharp end, than a white man. We may wish that it was not so, but so it is.

But she is not merely talking about personal experience, she's talking about what judgments such a person would make, and hence their qualification for the job in question. Which, ironically, could justify discriminating on the basis of race and gender when it comes to making what amounts to a hiring decision.

[Neally]

I will just say that when it's time for Congress to debate her appointment, I hope they'll do more than fight over the word-parsing of a single eight-year-old sentence.

Regrettably, I find that unlikely.

So you would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"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."?

[Darth Rotor]

Her nom, an anti-take: tokenism, but a twofer tokenism deal
Her nom, pro-take: makes the SC look more like America. Came up from humble means and done good. (I really like that last part).

My general take: We don't need any more *****' New Yawkers on the SC, but that's outta my hands, so be it.

OK, it's a wash on all those scores.

Her qualifications: in order.

Obama: liberal
Prospective justice: liberal

No surprise.

Don't see the GOP having much ammo to shoot at her, unless the decision on the NH firefighters ignites some sort of Congressional blaze. Bet the under on that.

Betting the over on a nom, with little Congresional friction and a hell of a lot of noise among the pundits, and various blogosphere pots boiling over.

What she did for baseball, however wonderful that was, could not save baseball for me.

The '94 strike ended it for me: no more of my money spent on

Baseball fan stuff, MLB
Baseball tickets, MLB

I have supported a couple of high school, college, and AA clubs, but the bigs get

No More Of My Money.

Ever Again.

DR

[SezMe]

Aren't the more vocal and riled up Republicans making a big mistake here. Calling her unqualified, inexperienced, activist, liberal, radical, etc. all seem more than a small stretch to me. Sure, you can question some of her previous calls and that is fair game. But the labels - not so much.

The problem, it seems to me, is the NEXT nominee. Suppose Obama picks a REAL liberal strong on, say, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. All the Republican flash points. They'll scream liberal, activist, radical and all the others labels and the reaction might be, *yawn*, "been there, done that".

I think from a purely political perspective, the Republicans are making a tactical mistake here. I think they should save the big guns for the big fight which is likely to come.

[Ziggurat]

Don't see the GOP having much ammo to shoot at her, unless the decision on the NH firefighters ignites some sort of Congressional blaze. Bet the under on that.

Potentially more significant I think is Didden v. Village of Port Chester. I think most people would disagree with the ruling in that case, but it's also not the sort of topic (property rights) which gets the rabble to man the barricades, so to speak, so it may not end up having much effect. But I hope she at least gets grilled about it.

[corplinx]

The basic qualification for being on the Supreme Court is: breathing.

I think Presidents should have their nominees rubber stamped unless there is something defectively wrong. If the hearings are ceremony instead of special interest funded slandering, I think some people may take their vote for president more seriously once they see the real consequences.

[Cicero]

Aren't the more vocal and riled up Republicans making a big mistake here. Calling her unqualified, inexperienced, activist, liberal, radical, etc. all seem more than a small stretch to me. Sure, you can question some of her previous calls and that is fair game. But the labels - not so much.

The problem, it seems to me, is the NEXT nominee. Suppose Obama picks a REAL liberal strong on, say, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. All the Republican flash points. They'll scream liberal, activist, radical and all the others labels and the reaction might be, *yawn*, "been there, done that".

I think from a purely political perspective, the Republicans are making a tactical mistake here. I think they should save the big guns for the big fight which is likely to come.

Did the Dems make a tactical mistake with labeling Roberts and Alito? Did Senator Obama make a mistake joining a filibuster against Alito's nomination?

[SezMe]

Did the Dems make a tactical mistake with labeling Roberts and Alito? Did Senator Obama make a mistake joining a filibuster against Alito's nomination?
No and no. Now, would you like to speak to the substance of my post or ask more questions?

[SezMe]

I didn't insult you. Please don't do it to me.
Oh, quit whining and speak to my point. Or if you think I'm just too insulting to respond to, please discuss Joe's points in post #120.

[Cicero]

No and no. Now, would you like to speak to the substance of my post or ask more questions?

If your analysis is correct about how the Republicans are acting to the Sonia nominee, then it must also be correct about how the Dems reacted to the Roberts and Alito nominations. How could the Dems further ratchet up their vilification of these guys when they were already in full vitriol if Bush 43 had nominated another Bork?

[fishbob]

Did the Dems make a tactical mistake with labeling Roberts and Alito? Did Senator Obama make a mistake joining a filibuster against Alito's nomination?

Nope.
How could you even think that after Bush nominated Meirs?
Bush wanted to stuff the court with idealogues instead of justices, and he was caught and stopped, and forced to temper the idealogy with some level of competence and judicial talent.

Initially, it appears that Obama is looking for justices.

[Tricky]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues. When she's giving a speech to a special interest group or being interviewed by a news program, that's being a politician. It may surprise some very naive people that judges aren't above politics. But the judicial decisions, that's the key to what they will do on the bench.

I see she has had a few decisions overturned, some by a very split Supreme Court, but overall, she's been reliably non-activist. I don't think anyone can paint her as an extremist. I think the GOP would be well advised to save their ammunition on this one. They will only wind up hurting themselves if they drive women and Hispanics even further away from their party by trying to trash a very well-respected jurist.

[Cicero]

Nope.
How could you even think that after Bush nominated Meirs?
Bush wanted to stuff the court with idealogues instead of justices, and he was caught and stopped, and forced to temper the idealogy with some level of competence and judicial talent.

Initially, it appears that Obama is looking for justices.

The only POTUS who actually tried to "stuff" the court was FDR. He wanted to raise the number of SCOTUS justices to 15. But you prove the point in that the Dems went ballistic over Meirs, Alito and Roberts.

[Neally]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues. When she's giving a speech to a special interest group or being interviewed by a news program, that's being a politician.

So you also would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"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."?

[Tricky]

So you also would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"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."?
If it was said in the context of a speech to an audience of white males, no not really. I'd put it down as "playing to the crowd". A political speech, not a judicial decision. The key is what you do, not what you say under the glare of spotlights.

[SezMe]

Neally, suppose there were no white males on the Supreme Court. Would it be ok with you if that demographic advocated that a white male be appointed? Ceteris paribus, as our economist friends like to say.

[linusrichard]

Potentially more significant I think is Didden v. Village of Port Chester. I think most people would disagree with the ruling in that case, but it's also not the sort of topic (property rights) which gets the rabble to man the barricades, so to speak, so it may not end up having much effect. But I hope she at least gets grilled about it.

Didden was crappy. Kelo was crappy. Eminent domain is crappy. Crap crap crappy. But as I see it, Didden is a plus for Sotomayor. What's the big complaint? "Empathy," right? That she's going to decide cases according to her feelings, and not according to The Law Of The Land. Seems like Didden is a perfect refutation of that complaint. She took the crappy crappy law of Kelo and applied it to the facts of Didden in a way that she could not possibly have enjoyed doing. Criticizing Sotomayor for Didden is essentially saying that you think judges should do what they think is "fair" according to their own personal feelings, rather than apply The Law. In other words, it's the exact opposite criticism that she's already catching.

So you also would have no problem with a white male nominee if he had stated,

"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."?

Can we please not pretend that race and gender are in any sense symmetrical in this country?

[Neally]

If it was said in the context of a speech to an audience of white males, no not really. I'd put it down as "playing to the crowd".Fair enough. It just seems that when the roles are reversed, a lot of people get pretty agitated.

Neally, suppose there were no white males on the Supreme Court. Would it be ok with you if that demographic advocated that a white male be appointed?Sure, why not? And that is relevant to my point how?

[corplinx]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues.

And I think less than that. I think that unless there is a major defect with the person, their nomination should sail through. I think starting with the Judge Bork nomination, the parties realized they could turn a boring constitutional hearing into a circus trial.

Sotomayer may reap 8 years of bad karma from judicial obstructionism by the Democrats. If she does, I won't shed a tear. However, it is my personal opinion that the current judicial confirmation system is terrible and needs to go back to being boring.

If people have to live the with the judges president's pick, maybe they will think more before pulling the lever. Presidents after all base their campaigns on all sorts of things they are not constitutionally responsible for "my stimulus plan is bettar!). However, running foreign policy and picking judges are pretty much what we get.

I don't the GOP are going to be the ones to "cease fire" however since they've gotten the short end of the stick for so long on nominations.

In my ideal world, she would get some cursory questions and then a gavel. Better yet, answer the questions in private interviews and just band the gavel.

[Brainster]

Per Politico, don't expect a fight (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23022.html) unless something more comes up:

Top Senate Republican strategists tell POLITICO that, barring unknown facts about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

More than 24 hours after the White House unveiling, no senator has come out in opposition to Sotomayor’s confirmation.

“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”

As Corplinx has said or implied, elections should have consequences, although I am glad that the consequences of this particular choice are not all that significant (since she is replacing Souter).

[Tsukasa Buddha]

God, it is so annoying that conservatives bemoan the liberal media, yet every news station accepts the "racist" comment as if it is fact. In context, she really was talking about race and sex related cases. I don't know of any way that conservatives could claim she was talking in general except if they were lying or didn't read the context they claimed to know.

[KingMerv00]

In my ideal world, she would get some cursory questions and then a gavel. Better yet, answer the questions in private interviews and just band the gavel.

Putting SCOTUS nominees through the wringer doesn't bother me at all. They are lifetime appointees after all. To get fired, they'd have to beat a congressional page to death with their bare hands. Better too much scrutiny than too little.

[Tricky]

I don't the GOP are going to be the ones to "cease fire" however since they've gotten the short end of the stick for so long on nominations.
LOL. They've gotten to pick eight of the last ten justices. If that's the short end of the stick, then that's the end I want.

[maddog]

Did you read the piece I linked to? It wasn't just that judges draw on their life experiences and beliefs, but that the role of a judge is more than the mechanical application of settled law. As the essay pointed, the very reason these cases reach the Supreme Court (and even the decision of the S.C. to hear them) is that they often hinge on law that isn't very settled or clear, or that is overdue for change.

We're not interested in having machines take the place of the Supreme Court.

Of course who a person is matters wrt making law. If you care to test this idea, ask if a Congress composed of black people would have allowed slavery to continue for the first nearly 100 years of the existence of our country.

Yes, I read your link. It says what some naive people (read: DDWW) are forgetting, but to most people should be a big yawner. The problem with what you added in this post is "law ... that is overdue for change" and "making law". That is not the SC's job. The legislative branch makes laws; the judicial branch enforces laws, and when necessary, interprets the meaning, intention, and legitimacy of those laws. Changing and making laws is not for judges to do.

Putting SCOTUS nominees through the wringer doesn't bother me at all. They are lifetime appointees after all. To get fired, they'd have to beat a congressional page to death with their bare hands. Better too much scrutiny than too little.

I agree. Not to mention that part of the wringer process is making sure that the nominee can handle the pressure.

[corplinx]

LOL. They've gotten to pick eight of the last ten justices. If that's the short end of the stick, then that's the end I want.

They just happened to be in power when they stepped down. If you look at the circus atmospheres to confirmations as well as the overall obstructionism of non-supreme nominations during the past two presidential terms, they indeed got the short end of the stick.

[Tricky]

They just happened to be in power when they stepped down.
That's not pure luck, of course. Judges tend to step down when a president they like is in office, unless they are just too sick to carry own. I think O'Conner definitely wanted to retire before Bush was out of office.

If you look at the circus atmospheres to confirmations as well as the overall obstructionism of non-supreme nominations during the past two presidential terms, they indeed got the short end of the stick.
I don't recall any great circus for Alito or Roberts. Certainly there was contentiousness, as one would expect for so important an appointment, but it was nothing like Thomas or Bork.

[corplinx]

I don't recall any great circus for Alito or Roberts. Certainly there was contentiousness, as one would expect for so important an appointment, but it was nothing like Thomas or Bork.

Alito and Roberts didn't turn into Circuses. However, remember that hispanic guy? I am talking about the overall judicial nomination racket.

Like I said though, in my ideal world, we have to live with the justices (supreme and lower) we get to encourage more due diligence at the ballot box. Unless there is some major malfunction with the person.

I can see no reason to hold up the Sotomayer nomination based on that.

[DDWW]

[QUOTE=maddog;4755740]Yes, I read your link. It says what some naive people (read: DDWW) are forgetting, but to most people should be a big yawner. The problem with what you added in this post is "law ... that is overdue for change" and "making law". That is not the SC's job. The legislative branch makes laws; the judicial branch enforces laws, and when necessary, interprets the meaning, intention, and legitimacy of those laws. Changing and making laws is not for judges to do.


Are we both naive then if that was the point I was making?

DDWW

[maddog]

Are we both naive then if that was the point I was making?

DDWW

I'm sorry, then, I must have misunderstood your point. It seemed to me, perhaps in error, that you were oversimplifying the situation -- that your point was that the court simply clarifies the laws and mechanically, robot-like (as others have also implied) omits any relevant personality, experience, character, etc. from themselves in the process.

The article is different in that it acknowledges, even emphasizes, that a person's background informs all of their decisions and viewpoints on the laws concerned, as well as their applications.

At least, that was how I read it. And again, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

[Beerina]

Whatever else one might say of Sotomayor, no one disputes that she's an experienced federal judge. She's not an Obama crony being rewarded with a Supreme Court nomination in exchange for her loyal service. I fail to see how a comparison to Harriet Miers can stand up to the tiniest amount of scrutiny.

Many conservatives like George Will were disgusted with the Miers nomination. Left or right, the judges are always judges with a high interest in Constitutional law and Constitutional reasoning. She didn't even come close to that, if she even was a judge at all.

[fishbob]

The only POTUS who actually tried to "stuff" the court was FDR. He wanted to raise the number of SCOTUS justices to 15. But you prove the point in that the Dems went ballistic over Meirs, Alito and Roberts.

Response to sentences in order:

1 - I seriously doubt that FDR was the only one. Also, I said that Bush wanted to stuff the court with toadies and idealogues instead of justices.

2 - And rightly so - did you miss the part about the idealogues instead of justices? Focus on that part for a minute. . . . . there - all better now?

[linusrichard]

I wonder if Sotomayor will trouble conservatives by saying something like this in her confirmation hearings, suggesting that her judgment might be in some way shaped by her life experience:
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.

I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

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.

[pgwenthold]

I wonder if Sotomayor will trouble conservatives by saying something like this in her confirmation hearings, suggesting that her judgment might be in some way shaped by her life experience:

So who did say that? Alito?

[linusrichard]

So who did say that? Alito?

Ding ding ding!

[maddog]

I wonder if Sotomayor will trouble conservatives by saying something like this in her confirmation hearings, suggesting that her judgment might be in some way shaped by her life experience:

FWIW, I consider myself to be a conservative, and I'm not troubled by this. That judgment is shaped by life experience is a simple truism. If she expressed a desire to change laws or base her decisions primarily on her own experiences and opinions, that would trouble me. But to base decisions on the law, as judged through her own eyes, shaped as she is by her experience (as we all are), that's fair enough -- in fact, honest.

[maddog]

So who did say that? Alito?

Ding ding ding!

Phew! At least I'm safely consistent!

[Ziggurat]

Response to sentences in order:

1 - I seriously doubt that FDR was the only one.

You would be wrong. FDR was the only president who tried to radically expand the size of the court in order to fill it with his own appointees.

Also, I said that Bush wanted to stuff the court with toadies and idealogues instead of justices.

That's not stuffing. You don't seem to understand what FDR really tried to do.

2 - And rightly so - did you miss the part about the idealogues instead of justices? Focus on that part for a minute. . . . . there - all better now?

The real problem with Meiers wasn't that she was an ideologue, but that she was unqualified. And I've seen nothing from Alito or Roberts on the bench to suggest that they are ideologues. They are conservatives, to be sure, but why is it a problem for a republican president to appoint conservative judges? It's not, just as it's not a problem for a democrat president to appoint liberal judges.

[Cicero]

You would be wrong. FDR was the only president who tried to radically expand the size of the court in order to fill it with his own appointees.



That's not stuffing. You don't seem to understand what FDR really tried to do.



The real problem with Meiers wasn't that she was an ideologue, but that she was unqualified. And I've seen nothing from Alito or Roberts on the bench to suggest that they are ideologues. They are conservatives, to be sure, but why is it a problem for a republican president to appoint conservative judges? It's not, just as it's not a problem for a democrat president to appoint liberal judges.

You don't understand. Liberal SCOTUS nominees are never ideologues; they're just liberals.....

[maddog]

I'm more troubled by this:

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

Link (http://http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html)

and

Gun rights groups also have a problem (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5044428.shtml) with Sotomayor's views, and in this case it's because of her substantive record, not her lack thereof. In particular, they cite a 2004 ruling (http://www.politechbot.com/docs/us.vs.sanchez-villar.2nd.circuit.txt) in which Sotomayor joined two other judges to declare that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Link (http://http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/28/sotomayors_views_on_abortion_g.html?wprss=44)

[rwguinn]

I'm more troubled by this:

Link (http://http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html)

and

Link (http://http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/05/28/sotomayors_views_on_abortion_g.html?wprss=44)
Links don't work for me.
I caught some of that on TV at lunch. If one were of a CT mind-set, one might think that, since the recent affirmation of the 2nd Amendment by the SCOTUS, since the Dems cannot expect to get a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, they will simply Judiciate it into place--except the guy she is replacing was of like mind to her opinion, so the vote remains. There will be more, however, during the next 4-8 years...

[Praktik]

God, it is so annoying that conservatives bemoan the liberal media, yet every news station accepts the "racist" comment as if it is fact. In context, she really was talking about race and sex related cases. I don't know of any way that conservatives could claim she was talking in general except if they were lying or didn't read the context they claimed to know.

Exactly - she wasn't talking about ALL cases. And what she said differs little from Alito: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html)

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

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.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

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.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

COBURN: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think I'll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round.

SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.And to be honest, I don't see what's so controversial about either Sotomayor's OR Alito's similar positions on this.

[Ziggurat]

Exactly - she wasn't talking about ALL cases. And what she said differs little from Alito: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html)

There is an important difference, though. Alito is talking about what influences him personally, and made no claim to any of those experiences making him a better judge compared to someone without those influences. Sotomayor's comments were about hypothetical generic people whose only characteristics were their race and gender, and suggested that those characteristics would make one person a better judge than the other. Yes, there is a superficial resemblance between what they both said, but there are rather important difference as well.

[dudalb]

Rush Limbaugh screaming about racism is one of the funniest things ever, since Rush has been playing the "Angry White Man" card for his whole career as a commentator. Let's be honest, Limbaugh whole shtick, although, of course , he never says so in so many words and would violently deny it, is that the country was much better off when "things were the way they are supposed to be"...ie, White Anglo Males dominating the country.
The GOP seems intent on throwing away another block of voters. Soon the only blocks the GOP will have left is white males and the Fundy Christians...and that is not enough to win in today's country. I see no hope for the GOP until they accept that playing the Angry White Man and Angry Fundy Christian cards are not winning hands after the last election.

[KingMerv00]

Like I said though, in my ideal world, we have to live with the justices (supreme and lower) we get to encourage more due diligence at the ballot box.

It sounds like you are more interested in teaching the American people a lesson than proper checks and balances.

[MattusMaximus]

Rush Limbaugh screaming about racism is one of the funniest things ever, since Rush has been playing the "Angry White Man" card for his whole career as a commentator. Let's be honest, Limbaugh whole shtick, although, of course , he never says so in so many words and would violently deny it, is that the country was much better off when "things were the way they are supposed to be"...ie, White Anglo Males dominating the country.
The GOP seems intent on throwing away another block of voters. Soon the only blocks the GOP will have left is white males and the Fundy Christians...and that is not enough to win in today's country. I see no hope for the GOP until they accept that playing the Angry White Man and Angry Fundy Christian cards are not winning hands after the last election.

Yup, with the Latino/Hispanic population growing in the U.S. at the rate it is, the GOP is practically guaranteeing another round of major losses.

I wonder how long this sort of thing will go on with the GOP? Will the Republican party have to wait until guys like Limbaugh die off before they change their course? Man, I hope we don't have to wait that long :boggled:

[corplinx]

It sounds like you are more interested in teaching the American people a lesson than proper checks and balances.

A check and balance that wasn't historically a rectal exam consisting of placing a 3 ring circus up the person's backside.

"Is this person looney or seriously defective?"
"No?"
Check.

Edited to add: Case in point, I see they are digging on Soyomawhatever's college records now trying to find something to Bork her with. Its just silly.

[MattusMaximus]

Edited to add: Case in point, I see they are digging on Soyomawhatever's college records now trying to find something to Bork her with. Its just silly.

Man, it seems the GOP is getting dragged by the Rushies into another round of losing strategy. I sense some major fail coming their way.

[Brainster]

Rush Limbaugh screaming about racism is one of the funniest things ever, since Rush has been playing the "Angry White Man" card for his whole career as a commentator. Let's be honest, Limbaugh whole shtick, although, of course , he never says so in so many words and would violently deny it, is that the country was much better off when "things were the way they are supposed to be"...ie, White Anglo Males dominating the country.

I have never gotten any sense of that at all in the years that I listened to Rush (1998-2008). I do not listen to any of the conservative talk shows anymore other than Medved (and that only irregularly), but I never felt he was racist. He may pine for the 1950s in some ways (although I doubt he would enjoy the marginal tax rates back then), but I never sensed racism from him, and would have turned him off back then if I had. Remember, Barack the Magic Negro is a song about Al Sharpton, who's supposedly singing it.

[Praktik]

Ya well I think with Rush its not so much the overt kind of racism you'd see from say, Michael Savage - its a little more subtle than that and the weird thing is, from my Rush exposure, I don't actually think he's consciously racist, but unconsciously so.

Its the way his wounded white male routine works him into some subtle racism, rather than being out and out, white robe type stuff.

[rwguinn]

I find it interesting that you folks would rather show even more evidence that Rush is an idiot and a jerk, and try to tar Republicans with the same "Rush Brush" than actually discuss the implications of her decisions and utterances...

[thaiboxerken]

Why is it that when a liberal interprets the law, the liberal is an "activist judge" but when conservatives do it, they're "just following the law"? Do you conservatives actually think we don't see the double standard here? Why is it that the experiences and decisions of liberals tend to be opinion over "law" but when conservatives assert "values" over the law, it's fine?

This woman will become a Supreme Court judge, there is just no reasonable justification to not confirm her.

[Praktik]

I find it interesting that you folks would rather show even more evidence that Rush is an idiot and a jerk, and try to tar Republicans with the same "Rush Brush" than actually discuss the implications of her decisions and utterances...

Chalk me up as fascinated by the discourse on the right. I think its a valid topic of discussion and inquiry.

Rush is an interesting phenomenon.

[Cicero]

Why is it that when a liberal interprets the law, the liberal is an "activist judge" but when conservatives do it, they're "just following the law"? Do you conservatives actually think we don't see the double standard here? Why is it that the experiences and decisions of liberals tend to be opinion over "law" but when conservatives assert "values" over the law, it's fine?

This woman will become a Supreme Court judge, there is just no reasonable justification to not confirm her.

Same with Roberts and Alito, both of whom then Senator Obama voted down, and he joined a filibuster against Alito.

[NoZed Avenger]

Same with Roberts and Alito, both of whom then Senator Obama voted down, and he joined a filibuster against Alito.



See, this is what some people have trouble understanding.

The "good" side (usually referred to as "we") raises troubling issues about a candidate for one of the most important positions in the country whose decisions will have serious, far-reaching implications. It is imperative that these people are given proper scrutiny.

The "bad" side (usually referred to as "you," or sometimes "they") willfully obstructs and goes digging through the garbage of upstanding persons with reputations of public service in a partisan witch hunt in order to be vindictive.

Pick either side you like.

I hope this helps.

[fishbob]

You would be wrong. FDR was the only president who tried to radically expand the size of the court in order to fill it with his own appointees.



That's not stuffing. You don't seem to understand what FDR really tried to do.



The real problem with Meiers wasn't that she was an ideologue, but that she was unqualified. And I've seen nothing from Alito or Roberts on the bench to suggest that they are ideologues. They are conservatives, to be sure, but why is it a problem for a republican president to appoint conservative judges? It's not, just as it's not a problem for a democrat president to appoint liberal judges.

Par 1 and 2: Move a goal post why dontcha, then go all semantic on me.

Par 3: Meirs was a toady. Not saying that Alito or Roberts are ideologues, but that because of Meirs - and the Bush penchant for valuing loyalty over competence - Bush appointees were rightly considered very carefully, being checked out for toadiness.

[fishbob]

You don't understand. Liberal SCOTUS nominees are never ideologues; they're just liberals.....

Whiff - - - you missed that one by a mile.
Consider my response to Zig, then try again.

[fishbob]

There is an important difference, though. Alito is talking about what influences him personally, and made no claim to any of those experiences making him a better judge compared to someone without those influences.

I disagree with you.
I think Alito was saying exactly that these experiences made him a better judge. And I do agree with him.

[Cicero]

See, this is what some people have trouble understanding.

The "good" side (usually referred to as "we") raises troubling issues about a candidate for one of the most important positions in the country whose decisions will have serious, far-reaching implications. It is imperative that these people are given proper scrutiny.

The "bad" side (usually referred to as "you," or sometimes "they") willfully obstructs and goes digging through the garbage of upstanding persons with reputations of public service in a partisan witch hunt in order to be vindictive.

Pick either side you like.

I hope this helps.

In short, what goes around comes around.

[Ziggurat]

I disagree with you.
I think Alito was saying exactly that these experiences made him a better judge. And I do agree with him.

You seem to be choosing to read that into his words, but no such claim is actually made. Furthermore, it is (as I already mentioned) purely an issue of his individual experiences, and not a quality of his race or gender, as Sotomayor is framing it. That too is a significant difference, which you have not argued against.

[Skeptic]

Harumph!

From what I know about her, yes, she seems to be an activist judge, which is a bad thing.

The problem is, that is FROM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT HER.

And what do I know about her? Well, bits and pieces I've read on both conservative and liberal web pages.

They both single out the same phrases from the same decisions, more or less -- the liberals for praise, the conservatives for blame. (In addition we have the usual nonsense that doesn't even pretend to deal with her legal views: the conservatives snickering, "well, she's not that smart, look what she wrote here...", the liberals whining, "everybody who doesn't want her nominated is a (wait for it) raaaaaaaaaaacist!!!". Ah well.)

Color me unimpressed. Every judge writes TONS of opinions. It is probably possible to quote-mine anybody to prove just about anything. Is there anywhere objective I can go to to make up my mind?

[Cobalt]

Why is it that when a liberal interprets the law, the liberal is an "activist judge" but when conservatives do it, they're "just following the law"? Do you conservatives actually think we don't see the double standard here? Why is it that the experiences and decisions of liberals tend to be opinion over "law" but when conservatives assert "values" over the law, it's fine?

This woman will become a Supreme Court judge, there is just no reasonable justification to not confirm her.

Did you call into the Sean Hannity show yesterday? I heard this exact statement almost word-for-word driving home during his show.

[Cleon]

Harumph!

From what I know about her, yes, she seems to be an activist judge, which is a bad thing.

The problem is, "activist judge" is a silly scare phrase that boils down to "She didn't rule the way I wanted her to."

[shecky]

You seem to be choosing to read that into his words, but no such claim is actually made. Furthermore, it is (as I already mentioned) purely an issue of his individual experiences, and not a quality of his race or gender, as Sotomayor is framing it. That too is a significant difference, which you have not argued against.

I think you have projected flaky meanings on Sotomayor's words, and given much leeway to Alito's. They both seem to have expressed very similar sentiments and it would take a gaggle of lawyers to divine very significant differences in their meanings.

Harumph!

From what I know about her, yes, she seems to be an activist judge, which is a bad thing.

One of the very few actual cases where the Right has been critical of Sotomayor is her involvement in the Ricci case, where she actually was not being an activist, at least the way the right likes to use the term, but following the law and precedent. Leading to an outcome the Right dislikes. A curious turnaround, where the Right comes out attacking the judge and not the law, for not being activist enough.

[corplinx]

Is there anywhere objective I can go to to make up my mind?

Without having a metric, I would say that if all they can dig up is 4 or 5 things for her long and distinguished career, that it would be an exception or minority of her work and not her modus operandi.

[thaiboxerken]

Liberal judges seem to be labeled "activist judges" more often than not, even though it's the conservatives that have a law school dedicated to pumping out activist judges. See Pat Robertson and Regent University.

[Ziggurat]

I think you have projected flaky meanings on Sotomayor's words, and given much leeway to Alito's. They both seem to have expressed very similar sentiments and it would take a gaggle of lawyers to divine very significant differences in their meanings.

I am not a gaggle of lawyers, but I have still somehow managed to divine differences (between a statement of influence and a supposition of superior outcome, and between individual personal experience versus generic race and gender characteristics). And you have not argued against the existence or the significance of those differences.

[Skeptic]

The problem is, "activist judge" is a silly scare phrase that boils down to "She didn't rule the way I wanted her to."

Not really, no.

[KingMerv00]

A check and balance that wasn't historically a rectal exam consisting of placing a 3 ring circus up the person's backside.

Historicity is not an argument.

[shecky]

I am not a gaggle of lawyers, but I have still somehow managed to divine differences (between a statement of influence and a supposition of superior outcome, and between individual personal experience versus generic race and gender characteristics). And you have not argued against the existence or the significance of those differences.


It seems to me you're seeing things you want to see.

[applecorped]

Man, I wish I weren't a white male. One day I will be a Hispanic female!!!!!

[Darth Rotor]

I think it is important to evaluate Sotomayer strictly on judicial issues. When she's giving a speech to a special interest group or being interviewed by a news program, that's being a politician.

Then go and get a justice for the court, not a politician.

I think the GOP would be well advised to save their ammunition on this one.

As do I, but I have not seen the GOP think to well, tactically, since about 2005, or before.

So I ain't holding my breath.

DR

[fishbob]

You seem to be choosing to read that into his words, but no such claim is actually made. Furthermore, it is (as I already mentioned) purely an issue of his individual experiences, and not a quality of his race or gender, as Sotomayor is framing it. That too is a significant difference, which you have not argued against.

He made the response while being questioned about his suitability to be Supreme Court justice, so in that context he was saying exactly what I said he was saying. And seriously, your race and your gender will play some part in your individual experiences. Not word for word identical, but I don't think this is a significant difference at all.

[DDWW]

I'm sorry, then, I must have misunderstood your point. It seemed to me, perhaps in error, that you were oversimplifying the situation -- that your point was that the court simply clarifies the laws and mechanically, robot-like (as others have also implied) omits any relevant personality, experience, character, etc. from themselves in the process.

The article is different in that it acknowledges, even emphasizes, that a person's background informs all of their decisions and viewpoints on the laws concerned, as well as their applications.

At least, that was how I read it. And again, I apologize if I misunderstood you.

My fault too. Actually I stole that analegy from Paul Harvey, who many many years ago did a longer and better job of explaining the role of the SCOTUS in those terms.

DDWW

[Neally]

He made the response while being questioned about his suitability to be Supreme Court justice, so in that context he was saying exactly what I said he was saying. And seriously, your race and your gender will play some part in your individual experiences. Not word for word identical, but I don't think this is a significant difference at all.Frankly, I don't want a judge to base their decisions on their "life experiences", gender, or race. I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Frankly, I don't want a judge to base their decisions on their "life experiences", gender, or race. I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

I want Steve Jobs to run to my house and give me a maxed out Mac Pro with Logic installed.

[thaiboxerken]

Frankly, I don't want a judge to base their decisions on their "life experiences", gender, or race. I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

You do realize that the decisions are based on interpretations of the law, which are very much affected by "life experience" and opinions, right? For example, the establishment clause. Some people think it establishes a wall of separation between church and state (intelligent people) while others think that it merely means the state can't set up it's own church.

[shecky]

I want their decisions to be based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

The funny thing is, as I pointed out earlier, that is pretty much what she did in Ricci, to the consternation of conservatives, who seem in that case, to have wanted an activist judge.

Yet Justice Alito gets a pass from conservatives when he gets a case about discrimination, and thinks about people in his own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. He takes that experience into account.

Look, I have no particular love for Sotomayor, and know little about where she stands. But it's clear that the conservative power base in the US continues to prove it has lost it's mind, with the charges of racism, preferential treatment, lack of intelligence, judicial activism, etc. by the likes of Limbaugh, Michael Goldfarb, Gingrich and Tancredo. For whatever reason, disagreeing with her philosophically isn't enough red meat for these clowns, so no hyperbole can be spared in the attack. At this rate, I expect to hear within a few days demands for her to produce a birth certificate. A real birth certificate.

[linusrichard]

The funny thing is, as I pointed out earlier, that is pretty much what she did in Ricci, to the consternation of conservatives, who seem in that case, to have wanted an activist judge.
Ditto Didden, as I mentioned upthread.
At this rate, I expect to hear within a few days demands for her to produce a birth certificate. A real birth certificate.
I was going to point out how unreasonable this is, and then I remembered who were talking about. It wouldn't be terribly surprising. When they don't have anything real, they'll just grab at stuff, throw everything at the wall and see if anything sticks.

Say, isn't it awfully arrogant of Sotomayor to pronounce her name the way it's really pronounced? (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=)

[Skeptic]

For example, the establishment clause. Some people think it establishes a wall of separation between church and state (intelligent people)

"People who agree with me".

As for the point of your post, yes, of course judges bring their own biases and experience and life into the decisions they make. But if one wants to have equal justice, this involvement should be minimized, not celebrated. Otherwise, instead of equality under the law, we have periods where group X gets the better deal, and others where group Y does.

However, I think that the bruhahaha about this judge is overdone. Judges cannot merely declare what they want to be the law, even supreme court judges. The media circus about her being "the first hispanic judge" aside, I see very little evidence that she either wants, or can, legistlate "for" hispanics or "against" equal justice.

[thaiboxerken]

"People who agree with me".

No, I meant intelligent people. There is ample evidence that the purpose of the establishment clause is to build a wall of separation between church and state. The founders distinctly clarified this purpose in other publications and mediums, such as the Federalist papers and even letters to churches.

That being said, there are those who will ignore such evidence and interpret the establishment clause in a way that simply fits their own agenda. Just like every other law.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also the referee analogy fails because referees are not allowed to decide that some rules are not valid. The Judicial Branch is meant in part to be a check of Legislative Branch power. While lower courts can only decide a given case based on existing law, the SCOTUS can decide which law is good and which law is bad and has always had pretty great power to make dramatic interpretations of the law. They are not bound by the letter of the law.

One glaring example is that the First Amendment clearly is worded as a limitation of the power of the Congress. The courts have long interpreted the same to be binding to all levels of government. A state, county, or even a municipal government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, for example.

Is this interpretation (which goes far beyond the letter of the law) the result of "activist judges"?

According the the "strict referee" analogy, the matter of freedom of religion at those levels of government should be a matter of states' rights.

[shecky]

Say, isn't it awfully arrogant of Sotomayor to pronounce her name the way it's really pronounced? (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=)

I saw Krikorian's boneheaded post a couple days ago. I wonder how he pronounces "John Boehner"?

[linusrichard]

One glaring example is that the First Amendment clearly is worded as a limitation of the power of the Congress. The courts have long interpreted the same to be binding to all levels of government. A state, county, or even a municipal government cannot establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, for example.

Is this interpretation (which goes far beyond the letter of the law) the result of "activist judges"?

That's not a great example. The First Amendment per se does only apply to the United States. When States violate freedom of speech, the complaint will necessarily allege violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the rights protected by the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth (and some of the Fifth) Amendments, and applies those protections against State governments as well.

At the same time, it's not a terrible example either, since it's not immediately clear from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment what's incorporated and what isn't, and so it does require interpretation. But it doesn't go "far beyond the letter of the law." It goes far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, but not far beyond the letter of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

[Dr Adequate]

I saw Krikorian's boneheaded post a couple days ago. I wonder how he pronounces "John Boehner"? I'd like to know where he'd like us to put the stress in "Krikorian".

Then I'll put it somewhere else.

[Skeptic]

Man, I wish I weren't a white male. One day I will be a Hispanic female!!!!!

Well, Michael Jackson proved a black man can become a white woman, so perhaps you'll get there yet.

What I don't get is the "she's mediocre" comments as an argument against her nomination. Perhaps she is, for all I know, but somehow I doubt that if she were a mediocre conservative judge her mediocricity would matter to those who now attack her on that score.

"She's mediocre" in this context translates to "she disagrees with me". If she were obviously incompetent, that would have been one thing, but it doesn't seem she is. The conservatives shouldn't be taking the "she disagrees with me politically so she must be stupid" page out of the liberals' playbook.

[marksman]

What I don't get is the "she's mediocre" comments as an argument against her nomination. Perhaps she is, for all I know, but somehow I doubt that if she were a mediocre conservative judge her mediocricity would matter to those who now attack her on that score.
Dahlia Lithwick had a good piece on this from her admittedly liberal perspective:

Sonia Sotomayor is plenty smart enough to serve on the high court.... And nobody should say that Clarence Thomas is less so. Conservatives who believe that Thomas has done credit to the bench shouldn't argue that Sotomayor cannot do the same. And by the same token, liberals who believe Sotomayor is amply qualified to be there should concede that Thomas earned it, too.
-Hands Off Thomas: Neither Clarence Thomas nor Sonia Sotomayor lacks the brains to sit on America's highest court. (http://www.slate.com/id/2219253/)

[MattusMaximus]

Ahem...

AP poll finds support for Sotomayor confirmation (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j0Xdc_4-lZIUAsa-HqPD9kU3MR-QD98INTA80)
Americans have a more favorable first impression of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor than they did for any of President George W. Bush's choices for the high court, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.

The public also backs her confirmation in higher numbers.

The poll, released Tuesday, said that roughly a third of the country has a favorable view of Sotomayor, while 18 percent view her unfavorably. Half of those polled say she should be confirmed; 22 percent oppose her confirmation. ...

And this poll came out after the poll-respondents knew about the supposedly "controversial" comments by Sotomayor.

So if those of you making the stupid "racist" charges want to keep ranting on and on, be my guest. Chances are, more than anything, that you'll just end up pissing off the very people you need on your side to win more elections - the moderates & independents like me. Which will eventually lead to even more judicial appointments that you can rant about.

Can't help fools :rolleyes:

[MattusMaximus]

Hmmm... looks like ol' Newt is starting to feel the heat...

Gingrich backs off 'racist' label for Sotomayor (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090603/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_supreme_court)
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday he shouldn't have called Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a racist, but said he was still concerned that she would bring bias to her decisions.

In a letter to supporters, the Georgia Republican said that his words had been "perhaps too strong and direct" last week when he called Sotomayor a reverse "racist," based on a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped the rulings of a "wise Latina" would be better than those of a white male without similar experiences. Gingrich's remarks created a furor among Sotomayor's backers and caused problems for GOP figures who have been pushing to bring more diversity to the party. ...

Oops.

Well, I guess we can expect to hear Rush Limbaugh start railing about how Newt Gingrich isn't a "real Republican" any longer, right?

The GOP is turning into a really bad joke.

[Cleon]

The GOP is turning into a really bad joke.

I'm still wondering when and why people decided to start paying attention to Newt Gingrich again.

[MattusMaximus]

I'm still wondering when and why people decided to start paying attention to Newt Gingrich again.

Comic relief?

[thaiboxerken]

I have to wonder. WTF does Clarence Thomas have to do with Sotomayor? Why should I have to consider Thomas smart if I consider Sotomayo smart?


PS, I do consider Thomas smart, btw.

[marksman]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

My problem with Sotomayor is not that she's insufficiently smart. It's that her opinions are insufficiently eloquent (and thus less likely to convince Kennedy to vote with the liberal wing than the conservative wing) and she doesn't seem to have an internally- consistent legal philosophy.

Love or hate Thomas (and I generally disagree with him), he has a consistent legal philosophy that provides a framework for analyzing the law. I can say the same for Scalia and Breyer, but not, as of yet, for Stevens, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, or Ginsberg. I couldn't say it for Souter either. Breyer's the only one on the left pulling any sort of intellectual heft. I'd like him not to be all alone out there.

[GreyICE]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

My problem with Sotomayor is not that she's insufficiently smart. It's that her opinions are insufficiently eloquent (and thus less likely to convince Kennedy to vote with the liberal wing than the conservative wing) and she doesn't seem to have an internally- consistent legal philosophy.

Love or hate Thomas (and I generally disagree with him), he has a consistent legal philosophy that provides a framework for analyzing the law. I can say the same for Scalia and Breyer, but not, as of yet, for Stevens, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, or Ginsberg. I couldn't say it for Souter either. Breyer's the only one on the left pulling any sort of intellectual heft. I'd like him not to be all alone out there. Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.

[thaiboxerken]

I read the article and I don't agree with the statement that if one thinks Sotomayor is smart, they have to think Clarence is smart as well. Just because both are minorities doesn't mean both have to be smart. I'd rather judge each person as an individual.

[linusrichard]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

That's not the question. The question is why is it somehow inconsistent, as Lithwick implies, to credit Sotomayor's intelligence or qualifications without crediting Thomas's. I don't see that question answered in the article.

[linusrichard]

Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.

You have to assume? You can't read judicial opinions?

[Brainster]

I read the article and I don't agree with the statement that if one thinks Sotomayor is smart, they have to think Clarence is smart as well. Just because both are minorities doesn't mean both have to be smart. I'd rather judge each person as an individual.

I think Lithwick realizes that many of the same arguments used against Thomas could be used against Sotomayor; that neither of them deserved to be at Yale Law School but got in on Affirmative Action plans, and therefore that Yale degree may not mean as much if the person is a minority. One of the cruel ironies of Affirmative Action (as practiced) is that it actually gives a logical rationale to prejudice.

[aerosolben]

Read the article to find out wtf Thomas has to do with Sotomayor and why both Thomas and Sotomayor are sufficiently smart enough for the Supreme Court.

My problem with Sotomayor is not that she's insufficiently smart. It's that her opinions are insufficiently eloquent (and thus less likely to convince Kennedy to vote with the liberal wing than the conservative wing) and she doesn't seem to have an internally- consistent legal philosophy.

Love or hate Thomas (and I generally disagree with him), he has a consistent legal philosophy that provides a framework for analyzing the law. I can say the same for Scalia and Breyer, but not, as of yet, for Stevens, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, or Ginsberg. I couldn't say it for Souter either. Breyer's the only one on the left pulling any sort of intellectual heft. I'd like him not to be all alone out there.
A similar opinion (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/06/judge_sotomayor_and_free_speec.php) on the subject from a science blogger.
I think this helps me to finally put my finger on why I am disappointed in the Sotomayor nomination. To some extent, one's approach to the law is independent of one's ideology. Sotomayor's minimalist, very technical approach to the law is mirrored most closely on the current court by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito. All three tend to eschew the kind of broad and bold statements, what is often called bright line jurisprudence, favored by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

But what I wanted to see on the court was someone who does have an overarching vision of what the constitution is supposed to mean. I prefer the judicial approach of Scalia and Thomas even while rejecting the particular interpretations they would apply in almost all cases. And I was really hoping for a liberal equivalent of that, someone who could offer a bold and distinct paradigm to counter that of Scalia and Thomas.

While I have great admiration for Justice O'Connor as a person and find her story absolutely incredible, I never cared for her split-the-baby approach to the law. I think it leads to wildly inconsistent results...

...I am not at all a judicial minimalist. I want declarations from the Supreme Court to be clear, to draw as bright a line as possible between what is constitutional and what is not. That requires justices who do more than apply precedent carefully; it requires justices with a clear idea of what the constitution requires and are bold enough to flesh it out in their rulings and give legislators a clear target to hit.

Judge Sotomayor does not appear to be that kind of justice...

[NotJesus]

I'm still wondering when and why people decided to start paying attention to Newt Gingrich again.


Because it's actually less painful than paying attention to Sarah Palin.

[aerosolben]

Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.
You have to assume? You can't read judicial opinions?
Too true. Here you go GreyICE, I'll even link it for you (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-6696&friend#dissent2).

Did a quick search for "republican party rules" in there, no luck.

[linusrichard]

Because it's actually less painful than paying attention to Sarah Palin.

At the risk of having my liberal card revoked, she was at least easy on the eyes. Although Gingrich, it turns out, is a better singer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhsbRb_pqE).

(At 2:58, but don't skip to it.)

[marksman]

Please elucidate on this judicial philosophy of Clarance Thomas. When it's an 8-1 split with 8 judges finding the Bush administration acted unconstitutionally, and one saying that all is well in the world, I have to assume that the philosophy is 'Republican Party rules, amright?'

Never seen any philosophy from him other than that.

I have. I think Thomas has a vision of the Constitution of limited powers, and one with a narrow role for the federal government -- one even more limited than the limited vision that Scalia envisions. (But within that narrow role, which includes being Commander-in-Chief, the Court should be deferential to a fault.) I'm seen him lay this framework out in numerous opinions, particularly in a decision on gun control from about ten years ago, in which he limited the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause -- a clause that Congress has been able to use to justify almost any legislation. Even Scalia accepted the expansive notion of a broad Interstate Commerce Clause, but Thomas does not.

I don't agree with him on this stance. But to write Thomas off as a political hack is wrongheaded and is to underestimate him as a justice. He has a strong vision of how he interprets the Constitution and he has been shaping opinions slowly, where he can, to inform that vision.

He's not as eloquent as Scalia, but he's more passionate about his constitutional vision than anybody else currently sitting on the Court.

On the left, only Breyer, imo, has a consistent judicial philosophy. But Breyer's philosophy is also fairly deferential to the executive branch. When it comes to civil rights, there is no person on the left who speaks with a clear vision and eloquence of speech. We haven't had a voice like that on the bench since Brennan. Sotomayor is a good judge and eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. Heck, there's nothing wrong with having solid, smart judges on the bench, but there's also a need for a clear philosophical voice, particularly on a fiercely divided court like this one where the goal is to convince Kennedy to join your opinion. The left needs that voice. Badly.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's not a great example. The First Amendment per se does only apply to the United States. When States violate freedom of speech, the complaint will necessarily allege violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the rights protected by the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth (and some of the Fifth) Amendments, and applies those protections against State governments as well.

At the same time, it's not a terrible example either, since it's not immediately clear from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment what's incorporated and what isn't, and so it does require interpretation. But it doesn't go "far beyond the letter of the law." It goes far beyond the letter of the First Amendment, but not far beyond the letter of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure case law interpreted the First Amendment as applying to states even before the Fourteenth Amendment.

Still, there are plenty of other examples.

How about the recent case that supported the notion of the right to bear arms as an individual right despite the language about a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state? I don't think that's being a strict constructionist either--just ignoring the first part of the Second Amendment as if it weren't there at all.

The "establishment" clause in the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean that public schools can't teach religion. Is that the result of "activist judges"? (Probably not a good example since there are those who think just that!)

[linusrichard]

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure case law interpreted the First Amendment as applying to states even before the Fourteenth Amendment.
Do check, but in the meantime, here's this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)).

Still, there are plenty of other examples.

Sure.

[MattusMaximus]

Because it's actually less painful than paying attention to Sarah Palin.

It's only painful if you have the sound turned on when she's on TV ;)

[GreyICE]

You have to assume? You can't read judicial opinions?

Have you READ his opinions?

Do you know the case I'm referring to even? There is no interpretation of that ruling that finds that 'oh hey, we can declare US citizens not US citizens' sensibly.

[applecorped]

“I understand that during her career she has written hundreds and hundreds of opinions,” said Reid. “I haven’t read a single one of them. And if I’m fortunate, before we end this, I won’t have to read one of them.”

Harry Reid

[linusrichard]

Have you READ his opinions?
Some of them, yes.

Do you know the case I'm referring to even? There is no interpretation of that ruling that finds that 'oh hey, we can declare US citizens not US citizens' sensibly.
I didn't know the case you were referring to from your post above, because I think there are probably a number of cases that match that description.

I believe his dissent in Hamdi was wrong. I don't believe it is as you characterize it.

[GreyICE]

Some of them, yes.


I didn't know the case you were referring to from your post above, because I think there are probably a number of cases that match that description.

I believe his dissent in Hamdi was wrong. I don't believe it is as you characterize it.

I can't come to any other conclusion. For a justice who supposedly believes in limited government to come to the conclusion that the Sixth Amendment and Habeus Corpus could exist or cease at the whim of a president, at his sole discretion, subject to no judicial review... seems insane. If it was a judge who had a habit of favoring a strong, powerful government, the decision would make sense (it would still be wrong, I mean 8 other justices came to some variant of the conclusion 'you cannot do that' ranging from 'you cannot do that the way you did it' to 'there is no clause and no power in the entire constitution that allows you to even think about doing that'). As one who supposedly favors anything but... it doesn't make sense.

I dunno. I've always respected Scalia, even if I disagree with him, but Hamdi tells me Thomas is voting for something other than what he supposedly is.

[linusrichard]

I can't come to any other conclusion. For a justice who supposedly believes in limited government ...
There's the key. When it comes to the executive branch of the government, and especially when it comes to the powers of the executive branch related to national security and foreign relations, Thomas does not supposedly believe in limited government; just the opposite.
...If it was a judge who had a habit of favoring a strong, powerful government, the decision would make sense (it would still be wrong, I mean 8 other justices came to some variant of the conclusion 'you cannot do that' ranging from 'you cannot do that the way you did it' to 'there is no clause and no power in the entire constitution that allows you to even think about doing that').
He does favor a strong, powerful executive branch when it comes to national security, so it does make sense. And yes, it is still wrong. Although I would hesitate to say it's wrong simply because it's the 1 in an 8-1 decision.
I dunno. I've always respected Scalia, even if I disagree with him, but Hamdi tells me Thomas is voting for something other than what he supposedly is.
I respect Scalia as well, but I think Thomas is more consistent and more principled. I also think he's wrong - sometimes crazily wrong - more often.

[Ysidro]

Say, isn't it awfully arrogant of Sotomayor to pronounce her name the way it's really pronounced? (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzkwYzY3ZTc4NTkwZjRiMjM3OGVlMzlmNTZjYmY2ZDI=)

WTF? Of all the things he could complain about, he picks this? I guess it's true, conservatives really are the party of rich white guys.

You know, I'm tempted to start pronouncing my family's name the way it was in the old country but I'm sure I'd be told I'm unamerican because 'we don't roll our 'r's here".

[Dr Adequate]

I wonder how the jerk pronounces "Geithner".

Well, at least that's Aryan.