Where do you see her saying that cases should be decided in accordance with a diversity agenda??
I again urge you to read the other thread, where the quote you are concerned about is given along with the whole of two paragraphs of what she said around that quote. I think you will find that what she is saying is somewhat different than what you think, especially on the basis of the out-of-context quotation of it in the NYT article.
I never heard of her before this week either…but then I don’t exactly follow this kind of thing usually. However, assuming that she is indeed not a liberal (and everything I’ve read that wasn’t a conservative/RW source seems to indicate she is a perhaps left leaning moderate), it’s funny that it seems a given that the DEMS would support her nomination. It’s assumed that some non-zero number of Republican’s won’t (as I said, that’s practically de rigueur these days), but it seems to be a given that the Dem’s will be supporting her.
I wonder though how accurate that will turn out to be…after all, this is the Dem’s big shot at getting their own justice in there, and it will be replacing an older left leaning justice after all.
-XT
I certainly have heard of Sotomayer (years ago). I oppose her nomination on general principle: I don’t really care if she’s nominated or not, but it will useful as a method of reorganizing and galvanizing the party.
However, she will draw some real fire for suggesting that having different life experiences can make one a better judge - implying that racial or experiential differences have direct bearing on judicial reasoning, which embraces a legal (non-)theory I utterly despise. This will probably come back to haunt her. To those who haven’t heard it, the key passage is this:
“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.”
It’s not simply her arrogant assumption that being a Latina woman somehow gives one “richer” life experiences, or that this has bearing on cool and considered judgement, but her embrace of a self-centered racial role. She has apparently decided that racial and sexual roles are valid, as long as she gets to be on top because of them.
What general principle is that? Fight the party in power on everything?
I was struck by(and a bit disturbed at) how clearly uncomfortable Barbara Boxer(not even DiFi) seemed to be and how dismissive she was of Rachel’s concerns. She kept saying “there’s no way to tell how anyone will vote” ; sure you can. We could all predict how Alito and Roberts would vote, if somehow Kucinich was nominated, you could predict how he would vote, and with 95% conservative voting, it is a fairly good indicator of where the balance of the court is (increasingly) tilting towards.
The whole stink the rightwingers are raising seems to be(in addition to trying to rile up their base) just a strawman designed to drown out any concerns from the left over her actual record.
For any of our resident-righties keeping score, from this lefty’s perspective, with this nomination and Obama’s emerging national security/civil liberties policy, Hope™ is fading fast.
The cases cited in this WSJ articlewould seem to contradict with the headline.
No: the Principle of Doing Something Fun.
Frankly, sitting in Congress is deadly boring. I think it’s important to keep congressmen busy and distracted, so they don’t get any ideas. Their ideas are usually corrupt, often impractical, and always intellectually bankrupt. Therefore, the less time they have to disrupt things, the better.
Always intellectually bankrupt? What the fuck? And what is blindly opposing a judicial nominee but disruption?
Politically problematic, I guess - although she appears certain to be confirmed. But it’s absurd in my opinion to interpret or imply the quote means she believed white women aren’t as smart or can’t judge as well as Latinas. Judges are not machines and it is to the good if they are aware of how the law is applied and not just what the text of the law literally means. In many areas of life we recognize that people with different experiences can have different perspectives and that it benefits us to listen to people with differing views. Why wouldn’t this apply to the law?
Yeah. I despise Congress. Any time they are not doing their job is arguably all the better for everyone involved. Preferably, they would be locked in in a daycare center in Disneyworld until their terms were up.
She’s a Puertoriquena from the South Bronx. From the people I know, it would be really odd if she wasn’t a big baseball fan. (I did know about her ruling in the baseball case.) It’d also be strange if she was pro-gun. This is part of the experience, you know?
Think she was pro-union in both cases. Haven’t read the actual opinions, but from what I understand, in the baseball case, her ruling pretty much eviscerated the Owner’s position, and they couldn’t get enough votes to maintain a lockout, so the regular players could come back to work. In the football case, the union did not want Clarrett allowed to enter the the draft in violation of the 3 years out of high school rule, because that could jeopardize veteran players jobs…and she agreed that the collective bargaining agreement was serving its intended purpose of protecting union members over non-members.
The NFLPA was against the three-year rule.
Well, they were not a party to the lawsuit. They did file an Amicus brief, but I don’t know what they argued. Bottom line is they accepted it as incorporated by reference into the collective bargaining agreement. Here’s the decision:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/369/369.F3d.124.04-0943.html
Sotomayor is very strongly pro-union/pro collective bargaining in the decision, rejecting Clarett’s claims of anti-trust violations.
My earlier statement that the union wanted this result was incorrect. The language in the opinion seems to be Sotomayor’s reasoning, and not something the union actually argued–unless they raised the point in their brief, but I didn’t see her mention it coming from them.
Friendly advice: next time, read the entire thread before posting. Or else you might write something that makes it evident that you did not. I’ve been there, believe me, and it’s really embarrassing.
But now that you have, do you dispute earlier comments already in this thread on this quote of yours?
It would be hard to think of a more centrist judge. That’s the funny thing about being a moderate right in the middle: To the right she looks like a dangerous liberal, to the left she looks like a dangerous conservative. They’re going about this like the proverbial blind men and the elephant. She’s neither.
If she’s not a liberal then I don’t know what is. But whatever she is it worries me that she seems to make a virtue of being subjective, the ‘wise Latina woman’ stuff. I can just imagine the righteous indignation if a white judge had spoke thus:
“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
And don’t argue context. If a white judge had said that in any context whatever he’d have as much chance of reaching the Supreme Court as I have.
As the Wall Street Journal said, “Judge Sotomayor’s belief is that a “Latina woman” is by definition a superior judge to a “white male” because she has had more “richness” in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn’t what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the “richness” of her experience comes to believe it should be.”
Newt Gingrich, is that you? (Mr. Irrelevant did say almost exactly this just yesterday.) Am I allowed to be irritated that Dopers are intentionally or accidentally parroting political boilerplate?
Yes sir.
What I don’t get is the president not asking her about abortion. Not sure how presidents wouldn’t want to know their stand on this. I’m also surprised how judges that are appointed to this position can be so stealth about their actual stand in the scrutiny of today’s media.
I wonder if the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs was actually throwing the press a curve ball, when he claimed Obama didn’t ask her specifically about this.
It’s basically considered inappropriate for the president to ask a potential judge how she will rule on a specific issue. And by the same token, when Congress asks ‘how do you feel about this issue,’ they get non-answers. The judges don’t like answering on principle, and usually say “I won’t prejudge the issue and would have to see the specifics of the case before me.” But they are asked anyhow. It’s turned into a pointless, boring dance.
Judges have to pretend that they are as wise as Solomon, dispensing justice with nary a preconceived notion about what should happen.
In fact, they are human like the rest of us, and the activism that has been displayed in Courts over the past 70 years has led it to simply be a super-legislature. One side wants to get more “votes” than the other for their own issue, whether that be abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, etc.