Is it your opinion then that to be an “out” black guy a person is required to piss on the concept of free speech?
When it comes to lefty-leaning judges Sotomayor is decidedly moderate. Just look at her judicial record. I heard a quote on TV that on the Appellate bench she sided with the conservative justices there 95% of the time. Hardly a ringing endorsement of her true liberal colors.
Compare that to the conservatives who have appointed seven of the current nine SCOTUS justices. They gave us Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Souter should have been one of theirs but they got a bit of a surprise there. Gnashing of teeth over such diehard conservatives is a bit more than just a pro-forma, “we don’t like them because the other side nominated them.”
If there were balance in the world, and considering a democrat controlled Senate, then a polar opposite of Scalia is in order and not some moderate.
Conservatives, considering who the President is and the current Senate makeup, should be downright relieved.
And as noted she will be replacing a liberal justice so the court balance isn’t even really altered.
Actually, as a liberal lawyer, pretty much the last thing I want is a polar opposite of Scalia on the Court. That to me would indicate someone deeply immersed in Critical Legal Theory (which I stress has a place to play in legal analysis, but probably isn’t the be all and end all of life). Someone like MacKinnon, who would be an abject disaster as a justice. I’ll take much more moderate people, as long as we get no more goddamn textualists on the court for the forseeable future.
That was a joke, sparky.
Ah, but, sparky, criticizing Thomas for not acting like “a black man” is pretty common. There’s enough to attack him for without this bullshit coming up time and time again.
Generally I agree with this assessment (“generally” because I do not know what “Critical Legal Theory” is). I was just making a point.
For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll oversimplify: “Critical Theory” is the basic premise which the leftist activism that conservatives are always whinging about comes from. It basically says that the law as it currently exists is written to protect the wealthy and existing hierarchies and that judges should attempt to toss out as much of it as possible or at least replace its inbuilt bias with fairer biases (like affirmative action, say).
Here’s a problematic quote:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.*
Found here:
Just on the offchance, do you think that quote came in the context of a speech that might help explain it a little more than just the one sentence?
That quote has been discussed quite thoroughly elsewhere on the Board. Indeed, read the first page of the other thread here in Great Debates on Judge Sotomayor.
That’s sorta why I provided a link to the place I found it.
Did you read your link?
Of course I fucking read it. If you read it, you will see that it is a NYT article and does add some context to her remark. Still, her position is worthy of further scrutiny.
If you read the paragraphs surrounding it, then you know that it’s not a remotely problematic quote.
In the context you read it in, why do you think it is problematic?
It, and other portions of the linked article, indicate a willingness to consider deciding cases in accordance with a diversity agenda, rather than purely by neutral application of fact to law. Like the decision she was a part of in the firemen promotion test case, which hopefully will get reversed.
It indicates nothing of the sort. It does suggest that she thinks she’s a better judge than a white guy would be, which is maybe somewhat problematic in itself.
Ahh. “Purely neutral application of fact to law.” I kind of give up when I hear that sort of thing. The determination of facts is never a neutral process. If the inputs into the system can’t be viewed neutrally, then what value is a “neutral application” of systemically biased facts?
It doesn’t even suggest that. It suggests she thinks she’d be a better judge than a white guy in cases where an understanding of discrimination is important. Not as a general rule.
Like most people I never heard of her before this week so I’m still learning about her, but I thought Rachel Maddow’s takewas interesting on her conservative past (start around 4:40 to avoid a lengthy analogy to whiskey sour). While I know that Maddow doesn’t even pretend to be neutral, she believes Sotomayor is a strange choice because she’s not liberal.